APRIL 2014
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 1

Result 1.1.: All individuals and legal entities can express themselves freely, assemble peacefully and establish, join and participate in non-formal and/or registered organisations
Indicator: 1.1.a: Quality assessment of existing legislation and policy framework
Freedom of association is a constitutional right for any individual and legal entity without any age, nationality, legal capacity, gender, and ethnic based discrimination. Any person can exercise his right to establish associations, foundations and centres. Registration of CSOs is not mandatory and in cases when a CSO decides to register, rules and procedures for registration are clearly established and foreseen by the law. There are no sanctions applied for unregistered CSOs. The process of registration for CSOs is centralised and the registration procedures is done only in the Tirana Court of First Instance. This is considered a barrier for CSOs based outside Tirana because of the additional costs and time needed. Networking, both within and outside of the country without prior notice, is allowed. An official number of registered CSOs is missing and organisations cannot register online. The registration process is easy allowing for a relatively straightforward registration of CSOs. Within the 15 days from the date of the request the registration is deposited with the court .
The Law on the Registration of Non-Profit Organisations stipulates the right of CSOs to operate without state interference in their internal governance and activities, but there is no special provision related to state protection from interference by third parties. Financial reporting and accounting rules do not take into account the specific nature of the CSOs and are not proportionate to the size of the organisation and its type or scope of activities. Sanctions for breaching legal requirements do not follow the principle of proportionality. The restrictions and the rules for dissolution and termination are in accordance with international standards and are clearly prescribed by the law for the registration of the non-for-profit organisations. In general, there are no cases of state interference in internal governance of
CSOs. There are cases of political pressure on CSOs from the government playing the watchdog role by misusing laws on financial inspection, financial management and control.
The Law on Non-Profit Organisations allows CSOs to engage directly in economic activities but, according to Civil Code, they are not permitted to perform profitmaking activities. As a result, there seems to be a general misunderstanding as to what “profit-making activities” means. According to the Law on Non-Profit
Organisations, all income of CSOs comes from dues. But, in addition, they receive grants and donations offered by local or foreign, private or public subjects, as well as income from economic activity and the assets owned by the non-profit organisation. Reporting of economic and non-economic activities with the same format is not effective and is burdensome for CSOs. Bank transaction fees and charges, which are not allowed as budget costs are a financial burden in receiving foreign funding. The level of tax deduction does not encourage donations from individuals and corporate donors.
The legal framework of the Albanian Constitution guarantees the right to enjoy freedom of peaceful assembly as specified in the Law on Assembly. The law is respected in practice. The laws recognise and do not restrict spontaneous, simultaneous and counter-assemblies. The procedures of prior notifications, when an assembly is organised in public spaces, are regulated by the law. When assembles are planned on open public spaces they may be organised even without prior notification of the police. However, there are no cases of assemblies and meetings without prior notification of the police and there are no cases of interference from the police during assemblies. The law foresees the right of administrative appeal by organisers. Assemblies are organised in conformity with and in respect to the law, and the role of the police has been supportive. Media is present at peaceful assemblies.
Albania offers constitutional and legal guarantees of the right of citizens to express themselves freely. Any limitations, such as restrictions on hate speech, imposed by legislation are described clearly and in accordance with international laws in the Penal Code of the Republic of Albania. Libel is regulated in the Penal Code despite efforts in 2012 to remove it and include it in the Civil Code. In practice, CSOs exercise their freedom of expression without any interference. They are allowed to organise seminars, conferences and other public events to discuss different issues, to participate and express their views and opinion in written, electronic and social media even while criticising the government. There are rare cases of detention and accusation of CSOs, which have been resolved by the prosecutor’s decision not to pursue charges.
Albanian legislation meets the basic requirements to facilitate and support the implementation and improvement of new technologies, new services and new regulations in the Albanian Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Sector. Still, Albania suffers from a low penetration of fixed lines and Internet; a low percentage of PC ownership; high costs of Internet and mobile access and services; a low level of awareness of the benefits of the use of ICT; a digital gap between urban and rural areas and, in comparison to other countries in Europe, a low level of state subsidies and a lack of policies to support all these. There are no cases in practice where restrictions are imposed on accessing any source of information, including the Internet or ICT. There is no practice or case of unjustified monitoring of communication channels, including the Internet or ICT, by the authorities or of collecting user information. There is no case of police harassment of members of social networking groups.
Indicator 1.1.b. Progress with the adoption and implementation of relevant legislation
This indicator will be monitored in accordance with the adopted recommendations and targets .
Recommendations:
BCSDN
Legal:

Decentralise the CSO registration process.

Improve the current tax and financial reporting legislation through a separate framework for the CSO sector, taking into account the specific nature of the sector, size of the organisations and scope and type of activity.

Legal clarifications for differentiation between economic and noneconomic activities of CSOs.

Libel and defamation should be introduced in the Civil Code rather than being part of the Penal Code.

Revise the Law on Cost for Internet and Mobile Access and Services.

Develop public policies for the development of ICT.
Practice:
Possible others

Closer monitoring of provision and application of anti-money legislation.




Modification of the sanctions so they follow the principle of proportionality.
Closer and further monitoring of state interference in the internal governance of CSOs and the application of sanctions.
Investigate possibilities for decreasing bank charges for foreign funding.
Closer monitoring of freedom of expression.
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 2


Establish a registry system for CSOs encompassing official data.

Introduce different reporting models for economic and non-economic activities of CSOs.

Establish a CSO cross-sectoral lobby group for the protection and public defence of the right to freedom of expression.

Improve the protection of CSO activists and journalists as human rights’ defenders.


Improve penetration of the Internet in rural and remote areas.
Ensure affordable prices of the Internet for small CSOs in remote and rural areas.
Result: 1.2. Policies and the legal environment stimulate and facilitate volunteering and employment in CSOs
Indicator: 1.2.a. Number of employees in CSOs (permanent and part-time)
There is no precise data on the number of employees in CSOs in Albania. Most Albanian CSOs cannot engage a full-time professional staff, but have one to three professional personnel, often employed on short-term project contracts or on an annual basis. There are only 1,651 CSOs registered with the tax authorities.
However, recent civil society assessments found that only approximately 450 CSOs are active.


1% of CSOs stated that they do not have employees, 16% have one employee, 40% from 2-5 employees, and 46% over 6 employees
Out of total number of employees, 7.3% work full time, and 3.9% work part-time
Indicator: 1.2.b. Number of volunteers in CSOs per type of CSO/sector
There is no official data available on the number of volunteers in Albania.

47% of CSOs believe that up to 10% of organisation engaged volunteers, 9% believe that 11-20% of CSOs engage volunteers, 23% believe that 21-50% CSOs engage volunteers, and 17% of CSOs believe that over 50% of CSOs engage volunteers

77% CSOs stated that they have engaged, 23% stated that have not engaged volunteers in 2013, and for 1% it was not applicable

28% of the organisation had 1-5 volunteers, 42% of CSOs over 15 volunteers, and 30% between 6-15 volunteers in 2013

15% of CSOs paid pecuniary compensations to the engaged volunteers in the amount of their costs, and 65% did not pay any pecuniary costs

70% of CSOs stated that they did not conclude any volunteering contract with volunteers, 6% stated that they have concluded with up to 3 volunteers, 14% if CSOs concluded volunteering contract with 4-10 volunteers, and 10% with more than 10 volunteers

84% of CSOs did not conclude any other contract with volunteers
Indicator: 1.2.c. Quality of the legislative framework
59% of CSOs were inclined to stating that legal solution in Albania are not stimulating at all for volunteers, while 36% inclined stating that it is stimulating.
Stimulating
The Albanian legislation related to human resources is unified for all employers and applied without differential treatment for CSOs. There are no incentive programmes for employment. State policies on employment are not considered a stimulant for CSOs.
Albania has neither a law on voluntarism, nor state programmes on voluntarism. Contractual arrangements between CSOs and volunteers do not define the role of volunteers or their rights, duties and responsibilities. Contracts exist only in cases where volunteers come from EU programmes, such as the European Voluntary
Service, where such contacts are required. There are no incentives or programmes on voluntarism. There are legal obligations for CSOs to declare and register at the employment office and to pay insurance for their volunteers. There are harsh penalties for noncompliance. There are no moral or financial incentives for CSOs that perform activities based on voluntary work.
Recommendations:
BCSDN
Legal:

Approval of the Law on Voluntarism.

Design state programmes on voluntarism.
Practice:

Design state incentive programmes for employment in CSOs.

Conduct regular statistical analysis of the non-profit sector.

Provide moral and financial incentives for CSOs that perform activities based on voluntary work.
Possible others

Look for possibilities for more flexibility in employment arrangements in
CSOs.
Result 1.3. National and/or local authorities have enabling policies and rules for grassroots organisations and/or civic initiatives.
Indicator: 1.3.a. Quality of the enabling environment for grassroots organisations and/or civic initiatives
Registration of CSOs is not mandatory and, in cases where a CSO decides to register, rules and procedures for registration are clearly established and foreseen by the law. The process of registration of CSOs is centralised and the registration procedure is done only in the Tirana Court of First Instance. There are no sanctions applied for non-registered CSOs. Registration in Tirana is considered a barrier for CSOs based outside Tirana because of the additional costs and time needed. This can be seen as a major impediment for grassroots organisations. Otherwise, the registration process is easy, allowing for a relatively straightforward and timely registration of CSOs.
The laws recognise and do not restrict spontaneous, simultaneous and counter-assemblies. The law regulates the procedures for prior notification when an assembly is organised in a public space. When assembles are planned on open public spaces they may be organised even without prior notification of the police.
Albanian legislation meets the basic requirements to facilitate and support the implementation and improvement of new technologies, new services and new regulations in the Albanian ICT Sector. Still, Albania suffers from a low penetration of fixed lines and Internet, a low percentage of PC ownership, high costs of
Internet and mobile access and services, a low level of awareness of the benefits of the use of ICT, a digital gap between urban and rural areas and, in comparison to other countries in Europe, a low level of state subsidies and a lack of policies to support all these. There are no cases of police harassment of members of social networking groups.
Recommendations:
BCSDN
Legal:

Decentralise the CSO registration process.

Improve Internet penetration even in rural and remote areas.
Possible others
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013

Decentralise the registration of CSOs to ensure facilitation for grassroots organisations.
3


Revise the Law on Cost for Internet and Mobile Access and Services.

Public policies for the development of ICT.
Practice:

Official data on the number of registered CSOs is needed.
Result: 2.1. Easy-to-meet financial rules for CSOs, which are proportionate to their turnover and non-commercial activities
Indicator: 2.1.a. CSO perception of the ease and effectiveness of financial rules and reporting requirements (disaggregated by type/size of CSO)

13% of CSOs assessed that prescribed financial rule, obligations of bookkeeping and accounting, referring to their organisations are not clear and understandable, while for 83% were clear and understandable

For 30% of CSOs it is not simple to implement prescribed financial rule, obligations of bookkeeping and accounting, referring to their organisations are not clear and understandable, while for 67% is simple to implement
Indicator: 2.1.b. Quality assessment of financial rules focusing on built-in mechanisms that account for the fact that financial rules and obligations change as the turnover and non-commercial activities change
Financial reporting and accounting rules are not effective and appropriate for CSOs. They do not take into the account the specific nature of CSOs and are not proportionate to the size of the organisations and their type and scope of activities (economic and non-economic).
Financial reporting and accounting rules do not take into account the specific nature of the CSOs and are not proportionate to the size of the organisation and its type or scope of activities. There are cases of political pressure on CSOs from the government playing the watchdog role by misusing laws on financial inspection, financial management and control.
The Law on Non-Profit Organisations allows CSOs to engage directly in economic activities but, according to Civil Code, they are not permitted to perform profitmaking activities. As a result, there seems to be a general misunderstanding as to what “profit-making activities” means. According to the Law on Non-Profit
Organisations, all income of CSOs comes from dues. But, in addition, they receive grants and donations offered by local or foreign, private or public subjects, as well as income from economic activity and the assets owned by the non-profit organisation. Reporting of economic and non-economic activities with the same format is not effective and is burdensome for CSOs. Bank transaction fees and charges, which are not allowed as budget costs are a financial burden in receiving foreign funding. The level of tax deduction does not encourage donations from individuals and corporate donors. There is no practice for endowments by CSOs in Albania.
Recommendations:
BCSDN
Legal:

Key: Adaptation of appropriate financial reporting and accounting rules taking into account the specific nature of the CSO, the size of the organisation and its type and scope of activities (economic and noneconomic).

Improve the current tax and financial reporting legislation through a separate framework for the CSO sector, taking into account the specific nature of the sector, size of the organisations and scope and type of activity.

Legal clarifications for differentiation between economic and noneconomic activities of CSOs.
Practice:

Different report format for economic and non-economic activities of
CSOs.
Result: 2.2. Donations are stimulated with adequate legislation and regulations
Possible others

Closer monitoring of the invasive oversight, which imposes burdensome reporting requirements.
Indicator: 2.2.a. Quality and applicability/practice of the legal framework for individual and corporate giving
According to the Law on Sponsorship, sponsors are considered business companies and individuals who have the “quality of merchants”. The level of tax deduction does not encourage individual and corporate donations to CSOs. Albania is one of the few countries in the region that provides no tax incentives for individuals who give to charity. Businesses that pay standard profit taxes may claim a reimbursement of up to four percent of taxable income on donations to CSOs, which are classed as a business “sponsorship”. Entrepreneurs that pay “small business taxes” can deduct up to one percent of their taxable income for donations.
Procedures in place to claim tax deductions are not functional and do not encourage individual and corporate donations. No specific deductions exist for these types of organisations. Businesses rarely use tax incentives for charitable giving. The law is not known or understood among the business community. Corporate philanthropy is in its earliest stage of development in Albania.
Recommendations:
BCSDN
Legal:

Revise the law on sponsorship to give further fiscal incentives/facilities for donations and simplify the procedures for reimbursement.
Practice:

Create incentives that will lower the tax burden for enterprises to carry out philanthropic activities.

Recognise the donation, making it public and visible.
Possible others


Make legal provisions for individual giving.
Promote philanthropy and corporate giving.
Result: 2.3. Financial (e.g. tax or in-kind) benefits are available
Indicator 2.3.a.: Quality of the system of tax benefits for the CSOs’ operational and economic activities
Tax benefits are not available on various income sources of CSOs. There is confusion in the legal framework regarding exemptions of grants from tax. This leads to different interpretations in practice.
The Law on Non-Profit Organisations stipulates that CSOs are exempt from tax on revenues realised from donations and membership dues, and it seems that grants are not included in exemptions from taxes. There is confusion in the legal framework as well as in practice regarding the exemption of grants from tax schemes
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 4

(taxes on grants vs. donor requests for VAT invoices for grants received). This omission may lead to incorrect interpretations by different state authorities, donors and CSOs in Albania. The economic activity of CSOs is subject to a ten percent tax on profits. This is similar to companies, which are taxed at the same rate for their profits. CSOs are required to report under the VAT system even if formally they do not have the necessary turnover from economic activity; consequently, there are no effective tax benefits for the economic activities of CSOs that support the operation of CSOs. CSOs in Albania are allowed to engage in passive investments. They are treated in the same way as business activities, and are taxed, with no exceptions provided by the tax legislation except for bank interest. Tax benefits from endowments are not applied because Albania does not have any law regulating this issue. There is no practice for endowments by CSOs in Albania.
Recommendations:
BCSDN
Legal:

Key: Clarify grant exemptions from the tax scheme through the law and not through other legal regulations.

Revise the legislation regarding the explicit exemption of grants from


 the taxation scheme.
Regulate fiscal legislation for CSOs.
Revise the taxation regime for economic activities.
Exempt the VAT scheme or reduce the VAT value for CSOs.
Practice:

Clarify at the practical level the exemption of grants from taxes. Follow the clarification with legal amendments.

Reimburse VAT.
Possible others


Legal regulation of tax benefits for endowments.
Promote passive investments and endowments.
Result 2.4.: Government support to CSOs is available and provided in a transparent, accountable, fair and non-discriminatory manner
Indicator 2.4.a.: Ratio of amount sought vs. amount approved/disbursed annually through state funding to CSOs (this proves availability of funds)
The state budget for CSOs is roughly the same from year to year and, on average, 50 percent of the total allocated state funds are distributed to CSOs.
Indicator 2.4.b.: Quality of state funding frameworks for civil society organisations (focusing on procedural documents)
Public funding is available only for the past three years through the state agency, Civil Society Support Agency (CSSA). It does not support institutional development and co-financing of EU projects. Grants and non-financial support are limited and available only in big municipalities.
Albania does not have a national strategy document that regulates state support for institutional development of CSOs and targets civil society as a whole. Funds are provided only through a national mechanism, which has a mandate for distribution of public funds to CSOs, the CSSA. The field of priorities of the CSSA is decided to conform to the priorities of the Albanian Government, and are not based on a consultation with the CSO Sector. Therefore, it does not respond to CSO needs. CSO representatives in the supervisory board of CSSA are “pro-government civil society activists”, which affects the agency’s impartiality. Watchdog organisations and movements campaigning against government policies are unlikely to receive support from the agency. Co-financing of EU programmes and projects through public funds is not a practice in Albania. Participation of CSOs in the public financing cycle is not transparent.
The procedure for the distribution of public funds as described in the law of CSSA and its internal regulations allows for a transparent and legally binding procedure.
The list of criteria is published during the launch of the call for proposals. Procedures addressing issues of conflict of interest in decision-making are prescribed in the CSSA law. Information is publicly announced on the official web site of the competent authorities and/or daily newspaper. The areas and amount of funds distributed are prescribed clearly in the annual reports of the CSSA, but the impact of the projects funded is missing. The procedures of application are not simplified and CSOs encounter unnecessary bureaucracies. Decisions on tenders are not considered fair and transparent.
The procedure for distribution of public funds and sanctions are prescribed in the CSSA law. Internal monitoring is carried out during project implementation by
CSSA but without consolidated standards. The regular evaluation of the effects and impacts of public funds is not carried out by the CSSA.
Legislation allows state authorities to allocate non-financial support, such as state property, for example, the rental of space without or with reduced financial compensation. There are no clear procedures or guidelines for non-financial support. Non-financial support from the state is required by the CSOs, in the form of: state property, making renting space without financial compensation (time), training, consulting and other free resources for CSOs. There are sporadic cases, especially at local level, where a local authority guarantees non–financial support. The CSSA does not provide non-financial support to CSOs.
Based on the existing legislation, CSOs can compete for state contracts on an equal basis to other service providers and there are no legal barriers to CSOs receiving public funding for the provision of different services through procurement procedures. But, in practice, CSOs are not able to obtain contracts in competition with other service providers due to a lack of clear rules and procedures and a lack of capacities from the government institutions on contracting out to CSOs.
The Law on Non-Profit Organisation is the basis upon which CSOs exercises activities for the good and benefit of the public. The Law on Social Assistance and
Services allows CSOs to deliver privately funded social services as well as public services with funding from the state budget. To deliver social services, CSOs need to obtain a license from the Ministry of Social Welfare and Youth based on criteria and procedures defined in a decision by the Council of Ministers. The contracting of
CSOs by the state is limited to basic social services related to the reintegration of persons in need, such as the victims of trafficking and domestic violence or Roma integration. CSOs are not included in all stages of developing and providing services. They are invited to participate in the procurement procedure for the delivery of the service after it is determined. The procedure for obtaining prior licensing is burdensome for CSOs.
Financing opportunities from the state have been low and the Government has failed to contract with CSOs for an inclusive strategy to support the development of civil society. The tender process is very difficult; the expenses for the preparation of the required documents are high; and the CSOs have no liquidity to cover these expenses. If there are cases of state funding, the funding available is for a short period with a maximum of one year. Most CSOs do not have revenues from public procurement or from the state contracts. The funds are disbursed at the end of the project making it difficult for CSOs to implement projects if they do not have the liquidity to cover their expenses. In some cases, the funding does not cover the administrative costs, which are needed for the implementation of the project. There are delays in payment and funding is not flexible.
The Public Procurement Law prescribes clear procedures and types of procedures for funds for services’ distribution. Price is the lead criteria for selection of service providers, not taking into consideration the quality of the services delivered. There is no clear guidance to ensure transparency and avoid conflict of interest. Few services are contracted to CSOs. There is a lack of information and clarity regarding the legal framework and technicalities for CSOs contracting among the public officials dealing with procurement.
The Law on Public Procurement foresees that obligations are valid throughout the performance of the contract for service providers. The law foresees standards for service providers’ qualifications, but not for the monitoring procedures. CSOs are not subject to excessive control. The regular publication on the impact of services is not available to the public. No regular evaluations on the impact of the services are carried out and publicly available.
Recommendations:
BCSDN
Legal:
Possible others

Improve monitoring and evaluation practices of the public funding cycle.
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 5


Key: The CCSSA, the national mechanism providing public support to CSOs should be restructured and should play its role in compliance with the legislation to provide funds for institutional development of CSOs, cofinancing of EU and other grants, and non-financial support.

Prepare and approve a national strategy regulating state support for institutional development of CSOs.

Restructure the CSSA to improve its functioning. Make it more supportive to the sector in conformity with its role as mandated by the law.

Develop a regulation with a clear system of accountability, monitoring and evaluation.

Develop a clear procedure and guidelines for non-financial support to the state.

Key: Establish clear rules and procedures through which CSOs can be contracted to provide services by state authorities. Introduce and regulate by law social contracting.

Establish easy procedures for CSOs to obtain licenses.

Introduce social contraction as a new practice of public service provision through CSOs.

Regulate the selection criterion based on both service quality and financial assessment of contenders.

Improve the Law on Public Procurements.
Practice:


Increase external monitoring of the CSSA.

Increase state support for the co-financing of EU funds.
The CSSA should have a coordinating role among CSOs.

Establish mechanisms to increase the transparency of public funding to
CSOs.

Simplify the application procedures and remove unnecessary bureaucracies.

Conduct more studies for the impact of the projects.

Increase non-financial support for CSOs.

Increase the role of the CSSA in providing non-financial support to
CSOs.

Involve CSOs in all stages of service provision.

Simplify procedures of payment.

Train public officials to contract CSOs for service delivery.

Increase monitoring and evaluation of the impact of services delivered by service providers.

Increase capacities of CSOs so they are equal players in acquiring the licences for provision of social services.

Enable longer-term contracts for provision of social services.

Improve frequency of payment distribution, or introduce pre-payment in contracts for social services.

Ensure that legislation recognises quality standards in provision of services.
Result: 3.1. Public institutions recognise the importance of CSOs in improving good governance through CSO inclusion in decision-making processes
Indicator: 3.1.a. Percentage of laws, bylaws, strategies and policy reforms effectively* consulted with CSOs
* in terms of: adequate access to information, sufficient time to comment, selection and representativeness, diversity of working groups, acknowledgement of input, degree to which input is taken into account, feedback / publication of consultation results
Indicator: 3.1.b Quality* of structures and mechanisms in place for dialogue and cooperation between CSOs and public institutions
* in terms of: CSO representation in general, representation of smaller or weaker CSOs, its visibility and availability, government perception of quality of structures and mechanisms, CSOs perception of structures and mechanisms

27% of CSOs in Albania were consulted in the process of preparation of drafts of local strategies, 26% of local action plans, 30% of specific laws, 19% of national strategies, 17% of national action plans, 16% of IPA programming of EU financial support, 13% of policy documents, 42% were not present in such consultations

64% of CSOs believe that they have adequate access to information

59% of CSOs believe that they have enough time for comments

73% of CSOs believe that their attitudes/positions were not taken into consideration during the consultations, while 20% believe that their inputs were take into consideration

22% of CSOs assessed that there neither feedback nor consultancy results were published, 58% believe there was no feedback, and that some consultancy results were published by the public administration bodies, 19% of CSOs assessed that public administration provided detailed enough feedback, and consultancy results were easily available to all parties

32% of CSOs stated that are not familiar with the structures and mechanisms between CSOs and governments, 37% state that are familiar, but do not believe that they have actual use, 32% stated that are familiar with the structures and mechanisms and consider them useful

33% of CSOs stated that are not familiar with the structures and mechanisms for cooperation with local governments, 35% stated that are familiar, but believe that they have no actual use, and 32% stated that are familiar with the structures and mechanisms and consider them useful

35% CSOs believe that attending the consultations, 12% that providing suggestions, and 19% that informing the public about the progress course of negotiation is the most important role CSOs have for monitoring the process of reporting on country’s progress towards EU
There are no national strategic documents dealing with the state-CSO relationship and CSDev, which is associated with a lack of adequate structures and mechanisms, has the mandate to facilitate cooperation between the state and CSOs.
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 6

Albania does not have a national strategy for the cooperation between CSOs and Government and civil society development. There is a lack of clear mechanisms for consultations with CSOs that would ensure that civil society is properly consulted in the process of drafting and adopting legislation or policies. Encouraged by the open and collaborative approach demonstrated by the new government coming into power after the Parliamentary elections of 23 June 2013, the Civil Society
Sector has started a dialogue on a series of issues including the Charter for Civil Society to the Albanian Parliament.
There are no binding rules or procedures for public authorities requiring them to publish draft policies and draft laws. The Law on the Right of Information on
Official Documents guarantees the right to information on official documents and defines clear procedures for access to public information, conditions, exception and deadlines. There are clearly prescribed sanctions for civil servants or units who breaching the legal requirements on access to public information.
Draft laws are not published by public authorities. Public access to draft policies and draft laws is difficult, according to 45 percent of CSOs. Deadlines for providing comments generally remain too short and there are no clear rules on public consultation.
There is no specific law regulating the issue of CSOs as equal partners represented in advisory bodies but, in different laws, the creation of advisory bodies is sanctioned. There are laws, which stipulate the creation of an advisory body, but they are in the minority and can hardly influence any policy initiatives. There is a lack of information among CSOs regarding the existence and functioning of such bodies and structures. Participation of CSOs in advisory bodies is considered difficult. The selection procedures are considered unclear and non-transparent, according to 57 percent of CSOs. Participation in these bodies does not prevent
CSOs from using alternative ways of advocacy or promoting alternative standpoints, which are not in line with the position of the respective body.
There are units in ministries covering relations with civil society but always within the scope of the ministries. Binding provisions on the involvement of CSOs in the policy and decision-making process do not exist. National mechanisms at the ministry level lack the capacities to facilitate CSO-government dialogues. Relationships between the government and CSOs have been weak and sporadic. There is a lack of capacities of public institutions to facilitate a dialogue.
Transparency and access to information remain poor and problematic. Involvement of CSOs in policy-making and decision-making has been characterised by spontaneity, selectivity of participants in the process using political criteria, or limited to the certain stages of the process. Information on the draft documents is not provided in time. Written feedback on the results of the consultations is not provided and reasons for not taking into consideration the recommendations provided by CSOs are not provided. There are no available data regarding the educational programmes and trainings of the civil servants who are in charge of drafting public policies. The units coordinating and monitoring public consultations do not have sufficient capacities.
Many parts of public administration are suspicious of CSOs that are often seen as political opponents of the Government and, therefore, as potential obstacles to the on-going reform process. There is also the perception that CSOs exist to serve the interests of private individuals or selective fractions of society rather than the public at large. CSOs have their own concerns about the government. According to different surveys, CSOs do not believe that government considers civil society a serious or important actor in its efforts to increase transparency and accountability.
Recommendations:
BCSDN
Legal:

Key: Draft national documents dealing with the state/CSO relationship, including goals and measures as well as funding available and clear allocations of responsibilities developed in consultation with
CSOs.

Adopt a national strategy for cooperation between CSOs and
Government.

Draft binding rules and procedures for public authorities requiring them to publish draft policies and draft laws.

Create a National Council for Collaboration between Government and
CSOs.

Draft and approve binding provisions for the involvement of CSOs in decision-making processes.

Bring into force binding norms for central and local institutions regarding consultations with CSOs in all areas that constitute the public interest.
Practice:

Establish high transparency, trust, collaboration, two-way and consistent communication based on clear rules and procedures.

Involve CSOs in all phases of the process of the public funding cycle.

Establish and empower state structures and mechanisms to support public participation.

Increase capacities of public officers in charge of the organisation, coordination and monitoring of public consultations.
Possible others

Follow up on developments of the charter and statement from the CSOs towards government.
Result 4.1.: CSOs' internal governance structures are transparent and accountable to members/constituents/beneficiaries
Indicator 4.1.a.: Percentage of CSOs publishing their governance structure and internal documents (statutes, codes of conduct etc.)

56% of CSOs believe that decision making in CSOs in Albania is in compliance with prescribed rules and laws of the organisation, 22% believe that decisions are made by some individual or top management, 21% that decisions are made with prescribed rules including consultations with the employees and volunteers

72% of CSOs stated that decision making in their organisation is in compliance with prescribed rules and laws of the organisation, 10% stated that decisions are made by some individual or top management, 18% that decisions are made with prescribed rules including consultations with the employees and volunteers

77% of CSOs stated that they have prescribed obligations to inform the members, or Managerial or Supervisory Board, customers or general public about the results of your work

89% CSOs inform members of their organisation about the results of their work, 86% inform founders of their organisation, 73% inform management board, 78% inform beneficiaries of their organisation, 64% inform general public, 65% general assembly, and 65% inform supervisory board
Result 4.2.: CSOs are able to communicate the results of their activities to the public
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 7

Indicator 4.2.a.: External perception of importance and impact of CSOs activities.

33.1% of surveyed trust to NGOs in their country, general population trust the most to media 63.7% of surveyed, and the least to political parties 19.2% of surveyed

60.7% of general population do not trust to NGOs

35.4% of the general population believes that NGOs support dealing with problems in their country, 62.6% of population believe that media supports in dealing with problems, and political party support the least 24.5%

58% of CSOs believe that the reason for lack of public presence of CSOs is insufficient interest of the media in reporting on CSOs activities, while 40% of
CSOs believe it is due insufficient (or inadequate) CSO activities

Among topics and issues listed in the survey education was assessed as the most relevant for people in Albania 90%, human and women, youth 86%, rural development was assessed as the least relevant 71% 1

79% of surveyed believe that CSOs in their country are active in fighting problems in human rights area, 72% believe in the area of youth, and 82% in rights of women

64% of surveyed believe that CSOs in their country are not active in fighting problems in protection of animals, 59% believe in the area of rural development, and 56% in safety
Result 4.3.: CSOs are transparent about their programme activities and financial management
Indicator 4.3.a.: Percentage of CSOs making their (audited) financial accounts and annual reports publicly available

48% CSOs stated that they publish their statute on their web page, 20% stated that the statute is accessible to the public, 36% stated that the statute is not accessible to the public

4% of CSOs stated that their statute is accessible to public from their office, 53% stated that it is accessible from the Facebook

33% of CSOs stated that they have a rulebook and it available on their web page, 14% stated that they have a rulebook, 14% stated that have a rulebook, but it is not accessible to the public, and 41% stated that they do not have a rulebook

36% of CSOs believe that up to 10% of CSOs in Albania publish organisational Annual Program Statement of Work, 23% believe that only 11-30% of CSOs do so, 27% believe that 31%-70% organisation publish APS of Work, and 13% believe that more than 70% do so

38% of CSOs stated that they publish their APS of Work on their web page, and 51% stated that they do not have APS of Work accessible to public

38% of CSOs belie that up to 10% of CSOs publish organisational financial reports, 21% of CSOs believe that 11%-30% publish financial report, 17% believe that from 31-70% and 23% of CSOs believe that more than 70% of CSO publish financial reports

21% of CSOs stated that they have financial reports accessible to public and published on the web page, while 62% stated they do not have financial reports available to the public

43% of CSOs believe that up to 10% of CSOs publish audited reports, and 23% believe that more than 70% publish audited reports

21% of CSOs stated that they have audited financial reports accessible to the public by publishing it on their web page, 67% of CSOs stated that they do not have audited financial reports available to the public
Result 4.4.: CSOs monitor and evaluate the results and impact of their work
Indicator 4.4.a: Share of CSOs that monitor and evaluate their projects and programmes using baselines and quality indicators

27% of CSOs evaluate their projects pro forma, while 66% evaluate projects with the purpose of establishing efficiency and drawing a lesson for further projects

42% of CSOs use external evaluation for realisation of their projects

26% use external evaluator for assessment of implementation of their organisational strategy

76% of CSOs have established system for assessment of efficiency for realisation of conducted projects

66% of CSOs have established system for assessment for implementation of organisation’s strategic plan
Result 5.1.: CSO activities are guided by strategic long-term organisational planning
Indicator 5.1.a: Share of CSOs which have developed strategic plans including human resources development activities in order to attract and retain talent

73% of CSOs have developed strategic plan, 18% do not have a strategic plan

81% use internal evaluation when employing staff in their organisation

32% of CSOs neither have established system for assessment of efficiency of employees in their organisation, nor 36% have internal strategic plan dealing with these issues

63% of CSOs stated that they have a human resources development plan aimed at attacking and keeping talented associates, while 18% stated that they are developing such plan

82% of CSO stated that they manage to keep talented associates, and 80% believe that they manage to attract quality new people
Result 5.2.: CSOs use research and other forms of evidence to underpin their activities
Indicator 5.2.a.: Number of CSOs' who use adequate argumentation and analysis for achieving advocacy goals



79% of CSOs active in public advocacy, mainly/frequently uses research for their advocacy actions, while 21% of them mainly/very rarely use research
84% of CSOs believe that they have enough information at their disposal
61% of CSOs use official data of national statistical offices, ministries, 13% conduct their own studies, 17% use international institutions such as the World
Bank, UNICEF, EBRD
Result 5.3.: CSOs regularly network within and outside country borders and make use of coalition-building for increased impact in campaigning and advocacy
1 Topics and issues assessed included: education, social care and humanitarian activities, human rights, employment, the young and their problems, culture and art, ecology, violence, rights of women, fight against corruption, fight agaiinst drug abuse and aloholism, safety, overseen government and local governemnets performances, rural development, protection of animals.
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 8

Indicator 5.3.a: Share of CSOs taking part in local, national, regional and international networks

41% of CSOs indicated that they do not belong to any international network, 27% stated that belong to one international network, 12% stated that they belong to 2 international networks, 21% belong to more than 3 international networks

6% of CSOs are not active in any of international networks, 45% are active in one international network, 20% are active in 2 international networks, and 27% are active in more than 3 international networks

28% of CSOs indicated that they do not belong to any national network, 32% stated that belong to one national network, 14% stated that they belong to 2 national networks, 26% belong to more than 3 national networks

10% of CSOs are not active in any of national networks, 44% are active in one national network, 15% are active in 2 national networks, and 31% are active in more than 3 national networks

56% of CSOs indicated that they do not belong to any local network, 19% stated that belong to one local network, 7% stated that they belong to 2 local networks, 17% belong to more than 3 local networks

5% of CSOs are not active in any of local networks, 45% are active in one local network, 14% are active in 2 local networks, and 34% are active in more than
3 local networks

30% of CSOs do not find CSO networks efficient, while 70% find them efficient

52% of CSO stated that their contributed in terms of the exchange of experience/knowledge from being member of a network
Result 6.1.: Fund-raising activities are rooted in CSOs' long-term strategic plans and the core mission of the organisation
Indicator 6.1.a.: Percentage of CSOs that confirm that they are able to raise funds according to their strategic plans

56% of CSOs believe that CSOs in Albania mainly adopt to donors’ priorities and collect funds also for other activities not in line with their organisational strategic plan, while 44% of CSOs believe that CSOs in Macedonia mainly stich with their strategic plan and collect funds for activities in line with their strategic plan

66% of CSOs stated that they mainly stick t their strategic plans and collects fund for activities in line with its strategic plan, while 35% stated that they adapt to donors’ priorities and collect funds also for other activities not in line with its strategic plans
Result 6.2.: CSO have a diversified funding base, including membership fees, corporate/individual giving and social entrepreneurship
Indicator 6.2.a.: Diversity in CSO sources of income

14% of CSOs stated that they did not have any donors in the past year, 10% had one donor, 28% had between 2-3 donors, 10% had 4-5 donors, and 9% over
6 donors

40% of CSOs had income from membership fees, 27% had from citizens, 20% form local self-government and/or regional administration, 50% from other foreign private or state resources, 25% form the EU funds, 19% form governments/ministries/state administration bodies, 25% from private companies operating in the country, 9% from public companies

60% of CSOs did not have income from membership fees, 73% did not have from citizens, 80% form local self-government and/or regional administration,
50% from other foreign private or state resources, 75% form the EU funds, 81% form governments/ministries/state administration bodies, 75% from private companies operating in the country, 91% from public companies
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 9

Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 10

Objectives Results Indicator
Conducive environment
Baseline findings Scoring Recommendations
1.
An enabling legal and policy environment, for the exercise of the rights of freedom, expression, assembly and association,
1.1. All individuals and legal entities can express themselves freely, assemble peacefully and establish, join and participate in non-formal and/or registered organisations
1.1.a. Quality assessment of existing legislation and policy framework
Freedom of establishment and participation in informal/ formal organisations online/offline of individuals/ organisations
Legislation: (10)
1) There is a legal framework according to which any person can establish associations, foundations and other types of non-profit, non-governmental entities (e.g., non-profit company) for any purpose. (1.1.1.L1)
2) The legal framework allows both individual and legal persons to exercise this right without discrimination (age, nationality, legal capacity, gender etc). (1.1.1.L2)
3)
4)
Registration is not mandatory, and in cases when organizations decide to register, the registration rules are clearly prescribed and allow for easy, timely and inexpensive registration and appeal process (1.1.1.L3)
The law allows for networking among organizations in the countries and abroad without prior notification. (1.1.1.L4)
Practice (10):
1) Every individual or legal entity in practice can form associations, foundations or other non-profit, non-governmental organizations offline or online. (1.1.1.P1)
2) Individuals and legal entities are not sanctioned for not-registering their organizations. (1.1.1.P2)
3) Registration is truly accessible within the legally prescribed deadlines; authorities decide on cases in non-subjective and apolitical manner. (1.1.1.P3)
4) Individuals and CSOs can form and participate in networks and coalitions, within and outside their home countries. (1.1.1.P4)
Freedom of establishment and participation in informal/ formal organisations online/offline of individuals/ organisations
Legislation:

In accordance to the primary legislation like Civil Code 2 and secondary legislation like Law on Non Profit Organizations 3 and Law

 on the Registration on Nonprofit Organizations 4, any person can exercise his right to establish associations, foundations and centers
(three types of CSOs recognized Law on Non Profit Organizations: an association, center or foundation).

The freedom of association is a constitutional right for any individual and legal entity without any age, nationality, legal capacity, gender, and ethnics based discrimination.

Registration of CSO is not mandatory, and in cases when CSO decides to register, rules and procedures for registration are clearly established and foreseen by the Law. The process of registration of
CSOs is centralized and the registration procedures is done only in
Tirana Court of First Instance

The legal framework is too permissive for networking both within and outside the country without prior notice.
Practice
There are no official data on the number of registered CSOs and organizations cannot register online
There are no sanctions applied for non-registered CSOs. Registration in Tirana is considered as a barrier for the CSOs based outside
Tirana because of additional costs and time needed
 The registration process is easy (59% of surveyed CSOs), allowing for a relatively straightforward registration of CSOs, and it is within the
15 days from the date the request is deposited with the court 5
 There are additional costs related to the registration deriving from
62/100 Freedom of establishment and participation in informal/ formal organisations online/ offline of individuals/ organisations
Legislation (BCSDN):

Decentralization of CSOs’ registration process
Legislation (possible other):

Same as BCSDN’s
Practice (BCSDN):

Official data on the registered CSOs number is needed.
Practice (possible other):

Same as BCSDN’s
Freedom of CSOs operations in relation to unwarranted state interference in CSOs’ internal governance and activities
Legislation (15):
1) The legal framework provides guarantees against state interference in internal matters of associations, foundations and other types of non-profit entities. (1.1.2.L1)
2) The state provides protection from interference by third parties.
(1.1.2.L2)
3) Financial reporting (including money laundering regulations) and the centralization of the registration process only in Tirana Court of
First Instance, which represents a barrier for the CSOs.

Participation of individuals in formal and non-formal organizations is easy, and in practice individuals and CSOs can participate in networks and coalitions within and outside their home countries.
Freedom of CSOs operations in relation to unwarranted state interference in CSOs’ internal governance and activities
Legislation

The Law on the Registration of Non-Profit Organizations stipulates the right of CSOs to operate without state interference in their internal governance and activities

There is no special provision in the Law related to state protection from interference by third parties.
 Financial reporting and accounting rules do not take into account the specific nature of the CSOs and are not proportionate to the size
Freedom of CSOs operations in relation to unwarranted state interference in CSOs’ internal governance and activities
Legislation (BCSDN):
 Improvement of the current tax and financial reporting-related legislation through a separate framework for the CSOs sector taking into account the specific nature of the sector, size of the organization and scope/type of activity
Legislation (possible other):

Closer monitoring of provision and application of antimoney legislation.
2 Law No.8781 , dated 03.05.2011, For Some Amendments to Law 7850 , dated 07/29/1994 " Civil Code of the Republic of Albania"
3 Law No.8788, dated 07.05.2001 on “Non-Profit Organizations”
4 Law No. 8789, dated 7.5.2001 “For the registration on nonprofit organizations”
5 Law No. 8789, dated 7.5.2001 “For the registration on nonprofit organizations”, Article 24
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 11

accounting rules take into account the specific nature of the CSOs and are proportionate to the size of the organization and its type/scope of activities. (1.1.2.L3)
4) Sanctions for breaching legal requirements should be based on applicable legislation and follow the principle of proportionality.
(1.1.2.L4)
5) The restrictions and the rules for dissolution and termination meet the standards of international law and are based on objective criteria which restrict arbitrary decision making. (1.1.2.L5)
Practice (5):
There are no cases of state interference in internal matters of associations, foundations and other types of non-profit entities.
(1.1.2.P1)
1) There are no practices of invasive oversight to which impose burdensome reporting requirements. (1.1.2.P2)
2) Sanctions are applied in rare/extreme cases, they are proportional and are subject to a judicial review (1.1.2.P3)
Freedom of CSOs in seeking and securing financial resources from various domestic and foreign sources to support CSOs’ activities
Legislation:
1) Legislation allows CSOs to engage in economic activities (1.1.3.L1)
2) CSOs are allowed to receive foreign funding (1.1.3.L2)
3) CSO are allowed to receive funding from individuals, corporations and other sources (1.1.3.L3)
Practice:
1) Legislation on CSOs engaging in economic activities is implemented and is not burdensome for CSOs. (1.1.3.P1)
2) There are no restrictions (e.g. administrative or financial burden, preapprovals, or channelling such funds via specific bodies) on CSOs to receive foreign funding. (1.1.3.P2)
3) Receipt of funding from individuals, corporations and other sources is easy, effective and without any unnecessary cost or administrative burden. (1.1.3.P3)
Freedom of peaceful assembly of CSOs’ representatives, individuals or
CSOs
Legislation:
1) The legal framework is based on international standards and provides the right for freedom of assembly for all without any discrimination (1.2.1.L1).
2) The laws recognize and do not restrict spontaneous, simultaneous and counter-assemblies (1.2.1.L2)
3) The exercise of the right is not subject to prior authorization by the authorities, but at the most to a prior notification procedure, which is not burdensome. (1.2.1.L3)
4) Any restriction of the right based on law and prescribed by regulatory authority can be appealed by organizers (1.2.1.L4)
Practice: of organization and its type/scope of activities

Sanctions for breaching legal requirements do not follow the principle of proportionality.

The restrictions and the rules for dissolution and termination are in accordance with international standards and clearly prescribed by the law for the registration of the non-for-profit organizations.
Practice

In general there are no cases of state interference in internal governance of CSOs

There are cases of political pressure from the government on CSOs playing a watchdog role, by misusing laws on financial inspection, financial management, and control. Tax authorities fined Mjaft! on unclear grounds in 2011. Mjaft! filed two cases court against the fine and the tax authorities’ report. And in December 2012, the
Tirana Court of First Instance ruled in favor of Mjaft!
6
 The sanctions are applied in rare cases or not at all applied
Freedom of CSOs in seeking and securing financial resources from various domestic and foreign sources to support CSOs’ activities
Legislation:

The Law on Non – Profit Organization allows CSOs to engage directly in economic activities but according to Civil Code they are not permitted to perform profit-making activities; so there seems to be a general misunderstanding as to what profit-making activities means
 According to the Law on Non Profit Organizations, the sources of income for CSOs are from dues, when there are such, grants and donations offered by private or public subjects, local or foreign, as well as income from economic activity and the assets owned by the non-profit organization
Practice:

Reporting of economic and non-economic activities with the same format is not effective and is burdensome for CSOs
 Bank transaction fees and charges which are not allowed as budget costs represents financial burden to receive foreign funding.

The level of tax deduction is not encouraging enough for individuals and corporate donations to CSOs.
Freedom of peaceful assembly of CSOs’ representatives, individuals or
CSOs
Legislation:

The legal framework guarantees the right to enjoy freedom of peaceful assembly by the Albanian Constitution and specified in the law on Assemble.

The right to enjoy freedom of peaceful assembly is respected in practice, as evaluated by 74% of surveyed CSOs.

The laws recognize and do not restrict spontaneous, simultaneous and counter-assemblies.

The law regulates the procedures of prior notifications in case the assembly is organized in public spaces or public passages. When assembles are planned on open public spaces they may be organized even without prior notification of the police
6 USAID, The 2011 NGO Sustainability Index/ USAID, The 2012 NGO Sustainability Index
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 12
 Modification of the sanctions so they follow principle of proportionality.
Practice:

N/A
Practice (possible other):

Closer and further monitoring of state interference in internal governance of CSOs, and application of sanctions.
Freedom of CSOs in seeking and securing financial resources from various domestic and foreign sources to support CSOs’ activities
Legislation (BCSDN):
 Legal clarifications for differentiation between economic and non-economic activity of CSOs
Legislation (possible other):

Sam as BCSDN’s
Practice (BCSDN):

Different report format for economic and non – economic activities for CSOs
Practice (possible other):
 Investigate possibilities for decreasing bank charges for foreign funding.
Freedom of peaceful assembly of CSOs’ representatives, individuals or CSOs
Legislation (BCSDN):

N/A
Legislation (possible other):

N/A
Practice:

N/A
Practice (possible other):

N/A

1) There are no cases of encroachment of the freedom of assembly, and any group of people can assemble at desired place and time, in  line with the legal provisions. (1.2.1.P1)
2) Restrictions are justified with explanation of the reason for each restriction, which is promptly communicated in writing to the organizer to guarantee the possibility of appeal.
3) (1.2.1.P2) Simultaneous, spontaneous and counter-assemblies can take place, and the state facilitates and protects groups to exercise their right against people who aim to prevent or disrupt the assembly. (1.2.1.P3)
4) There are cases of freedom of assembly practiced by CSOs
(individually or through their organizations) without prior authorization; when notification is required it is submitted in a short period of time and does not limit the possibility to organize the assembly. (1.2.1.P4)
5) No excessive use of force is exercised by law enforcement bodies, including pre-emptive detentions of organizers and participants.
(1.2.1.P5)
6) Media should have as much access to the assembly as possible
(1.2.1.P6)
Freedom of expression of individuals or through their organisations
Legislation
1) The legal framework provides freedom of expression for all
(1.2.2.L1)
2) Restrictions, such as limitation of hate speech, imposed by legislation are clearly prescribed and in line with international law and standards (1.2.2.L2)
3) Libel is a misdemeanor rather than part of the penal code
(1.2.2.L3)
Practice:
1) CSO representatives, especially those from human rights and watch dog organizations enjoy the right to freedom of expression on matters they support and they are critical of. (1.2.2.P1)
2) There are no cases of encroachment of the right to freedom of expression for all. (1.2.2.P2)
3) There are no cases where individuals, including CSO representatives would be persecuted for critical speech, in public or private.
(1.2.2.P3)
4) There is no sanction for critical speech, in public or private, under the penal code. (1.2.2.P4)
Rights of CSOs representatives, individuals and through their organisations to safely receive and impart information through any media
Legislation:
1) The legal framework provides the possibility to communicate via and access any source of information, including the Internet and
ICT; if there are legal restrictions, these are exceptional, limited and based on international human rights law (1.2.3.L1)
2) The legal framework prohibits unjustified monitoring of communication channels, including Internet and ICT, or collecting users’ information by the authorities (1.2.3.L2)
 The Law foresees the right of administrative appeal by organizers
Practice:

The right to enjoy freedom of peaceful assembly is respected in practice.

Assembles are organized in conformity and in respect to the law, and the role of the police has been supportive.

There are no cases of the assemblies and meeting without prior notification to the police.

There are no cases of interference from the police during the assemble.
 Media is present in peaceful assemblies.
Freedom of expression of individuals or through their organisations
Legislation:

Albania offers constitutional and legal guarantees of the right of citizens to express freely
 Any limitations, such as restrictions on hate speech, imposed by legislation are described clearly and in accordance with international laws in the Penal Code of the Republic of Albania

Libel is regulated in the Penal Code, despite efforts in 2012 to remove them and include in the civil code.
Practice:

In practice CSOs exercise their freedom of expression without any interference, as they are allowed to organize seminars, conferences and other public events to discuss different issues, to participate and express their views and opinion in written, electronic and social media, even in the cases of critics to the government.

58% of surveyed CSOs express that there is a very high level of freedom of expression by CSOs.

Despite that, there are rare cases like the one of four activists of the
Rinia Aktive movement who were detained in Tirana and accused of
“slander and distributing false information” after posting a mock obituary of Albania’s prime minister. They were released after two days following a prosecutor’s decision not to pursue charges brought against them by the police.
Rights of CSOs representatives, individuals and through their organisations to safely receive and impart information through any media
Legislation:

Albania legislation met the basic requirements in order to facilitate and support the implementation and improvement of new technologies, new services and new regulations in the Albanian ICT sector.

Still, Albania suffer from the low penetration of fixed lines and
Internet, low percentage of PC ownership, high costs of Internet and mobile access and services, low level of awareness of the benefits of
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 13
Freedom of expression of individuals or through their organisations
Legislation (BCDN):

Libel and defamation should be introduced in the Civil Code rather than being part of the Penal Code
Legislation (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN’S
Practice (BCSDN):

Establishment of a CSO cross-sectoral lobby group, for the protection and public defence of the right to freedom of expression.

Improvement of the protection of CSO activists and journalists as human rights defenders.
Practice (possible other):

Closer monitoring of freedom of expression.
Rights of CSOs representatives, individuals and through their organisations to safely receive and impart information through any media
Legislation (BCSDN):

Improvement of penetration even in rural and remote areas;.

Revise Law on cost for internet and mobile access and services.

Public policies for the development of ICT.
Legislation (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN’s
Practice (BCSDN):

Internet penetration needed in rural and remote areas.

Practice
1)
2)
3)
There are no cases in practice where restrictions are imposed on accessing any source of information, including the Internet or ICT.
(1.2.3.P1)
The Internet is widely accessible and affordable(1.2.3.P2)
There is no practice or cases of unjustified monitoring by the authorities of communication channels, including the Internet or
ICT, or of collecting users’ information. (1.2.3.P3)
4) There are no cases of police harassment of members of social network groups. (1.2.3.P4) the use of ICT, digital gap between urban and rural areas and in comparison to other countries in Europe, low level of state subsidies and lack of policies to support all these
Practice:

There are no cases in practice where restrictions are imposed on accessing any source of information, including the Internet or ICT.

Internet is widely accessible and affordable among CSOS in big cities, while CSOs, the remote and rural areas, have difficulties with internet penetration, and payment affecting their existence and effective operations

There is no practice or cases of unjustified monitoring by the authorities of communication channels, including the Internet or
ICT, or of collecting users’ information

There are no cases of police harassment of members of social network groups.
1.1.b. Progress with the adoption and implementation of relevant legislation
Progress Will be monitored as of this baseline in accordance to the adopted recommendations
1.2. The policies and legal environment stimulate and facilitate volunteering and employment in CSOs
1.2.a. Number of employees in CSO (permanent and part-time)

There is no prices data on number of employees in CSOs in Albania.

Financial constraints determine that most Albanian CSOs cannot engage full-time professional staff. Most of CSOs that have the financial ability to maintain staff can retain 1-3 professional personnel, often employed on short-term project contracts or annual basis.
7 (there are only 1,651 CSOs registered with tax authorities.
8 However, recent civil society assessments underline that only round 450 CSOs are active)

1% of CSOs stated that they do not have employees, 16% have one employee, 40% from 2-5 employees, and 46% over 6 employees
 Out of total number of employees, 7.3% work full time, and 3.9% work part-time 9
1.2.b. Number of volunteers in CSOs per type of CSO / sector

There is no official data available on number of volunteers in
Albania

47% of CSOs believe that up to 10% of organisation engaged volunteers, 9% believe that 11-20% of CSOs engage volunteers, 23% believe that 21-50% CSOs engage volunteers, and 17% of CSOs believe that over 50% of CSOs engage volunteers

77% CSOs stated that they have engaged, 23% stated that have not engaged volunteers in 2013, and for 1% it was not applicable

28% of the organisation had 1-5 volunteers, 42% of CSOs over 15 volunteers, and 30% between 6-15 volunteers in 2013

15% of CSOs paid pecuniary compensations to the engaged volunteers in the amount of their costs, and 65% did not pay any pecuniary costs
7 According to a CSO survey conducted by Partners-Albania in 2005 with a sample of 131 CSOs, 40% of the CSOs do not employ any professional staff and the average staff size is four.
8 Source: 2012 CSO Sustainability Index based on data from the Financial Intelligence Unit (Ministry of Finances)
9 Baseline Sruvey, Ipsos April 2014
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 14
 Affordable prices of internet for small CSOs in remote and rural areas
Practice (possible other):

Same as BCSDN’s
Legislation (BCSDN):
N/A
Legislation (possible other):
N/A
Practice (BCSDN):
N/A
Practice (possible other):
N/A

 70% of CSOs stated that they did not conclude any volunteering contract with volunteers, 6% stated that they have concluded with up to 3 volunteers, 14% if CSOs concluded volunteering contract with 4-10 volunteers, and 10% with more than 10 volunteers
 84% of CSOs did not conclude any other contract with volunteers 10
1.2.c. Quality of legislative framework
Equality of treatment of CSOs’ employees in comparison with other employees
Legislation:
1) CSOs are treated in an equal manner to other employers by
4) law and policies. (2.3.1.L1)
Practice:
2) If there are state incentive programs for employment, CSOs are treated like all other sectors.
3) There are regular statistics on the number of employees in the non-profit sector.
Enabling volunteering policies and laws
Legislation:
Legislation stimulates volunteering and incorporates best regulatory practices, while at the same time allowing for spontaneous volunteering practices. (2.3.2.L1)
5) There are incentives and state supported programs for the development and promotion of volunteering. (2.3.2.L2)
6) There are clearly defined contractual relationships and protections covering organized volunteering. (2.3.2.L3)
Practice (15)
1) Incentives and programs are transparent and easily available to
CSOs and the policy/strategic document/ law is fully implemented, monitored and evaluated periodically in a participatory manner.
2) Administrative procedures for organizers of volunteer activities or volunteers are not complicated and are without any unnecessary costs.
3) Volunteering can take place in any form; there are no cases of complaints of restrictions on volunteering.
Equality of treatment of CSOs’ employees in comparison with other employees
Legislation:

The Albanian legislation related to human resources is unified for all employers and applied without differential treatment for CSOs
Practice:

There are no incentive programs for employment. State policies on employment are not considered stimulant for CSOs (55% of the surveyed CSOs)

There are no statistics on the number of employees in the nonprofit sector
Enabling volunteering policies and laws
Legislation:
 Albania does not has a law on voluntarism
 There are no state programs on voluntarism
 There are no contractual agreements between the CSOs and volunteers to clearly define the role of volunteers, rights, duties and responsibilities. The contracts exist only in the cases the volunteers comes from the EU programs, as the European Voluntarily Service, in which the existence of such contacts is a must
Practice:


There are no incentives and programs on voluntarism
There are legal obligations for CSOs to declare and register at the employment office, and to pay insurances for volunteers, otherwise there are harsh penalties. By the other hand, there are no moral and financial incentives for CSOs that perform activities based on voluntary work.
Equality of treatment of CSOs’ employees in comparison with other employees
Legislation (BCSDN):

N/A
Legislation (possible other):

Look for the possibilities for more flexibilities in employment arrangements in CSOs
Practice (BCSDN):

Design of state incentive programs for CSOs

Conduction of regular statistical analysis of the non-profit sector
Practice (possible other):

Same as BCSDN’s
Enabling volunteering policies and laws
Legislation (BCSDN)


Approval of the Law on voluntarism
Design state programs on voluntarism
Legislation (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN’s
Practice (BCSDN):

Provision of moral and financial incentives for CSOs that perform activities based on voluntary work.
Practice (possible other):

Same as BCSDN’s
1.3. National and/or local authorities have enabling policies and rules for grass-roots organisations* and/or civic initiatives.
*A grass-roots organisation is a self-organised group of individuals pursuing common interests through a volunteer-based, non-profit organisation. Grassroots organisations usually have a low degree of formality but a broader purpose than issue-based self-help groups, community-based organisations or neighbourhood-associations.
1.3.a. Quality of the enabling environment for grass-roots organisations and/or civic initiatives
Registration, informal vs. formal
Legislation:
1) Registration is not mandatory, and in cases when organizations decide to register, the registration rules are clearly prescribed and allow for easy, timely and inexpensive registration and appeal process. (1.1.1.L3)
Practice:
1) Every individual or legal entity in practice can form associations,
10 Ibid 9
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013
Registration, informal vs. formal
Legislation:

Registration of CSO is not mandatory, and in cases when CSO decides to register, rules and procedures for registration are clearly established and foreseen by the Law. The process of registration of
CSOs is centralized and the registration procedures is done only in
Tirana Court of First Instance
Practice:
15
Registration, informal vs. formal
Legislation (BCSDN):

Decentralization of CSOs’ registration process
Legislation (possible other):
 Strong accent should be placed on the decentralized model of registration of CSOs should the conditions for grass-root organizations be ensured.
Practice (BCSDN):

foundations or other non-profit, non-governmental organizations offline or online. (1.1.1.P1)
2) Individuals and legal entities are not sanctioned for not-registering their organizations. (1.1.1.P2)
3) Registration is truly accessible within legally prescribed deadlines; authorities decide on cases in non-subjective and apolitical manner. (1.1.1.P3)
Spontaneity
Legislation
1) The laws recognize and do not restrict spontaneous, simultaneous and counter-assemblies. (1.2.1.L2)
2) The exercise of the right is not subject to prior authorization by the authorities, but at the most to a prior notification procedure, which is not burdensome. (1.2.1.L3)
3) The legal framework provides the possibility to communicate via and access any source of information, including the Internet and
ICT; if there are legal restrictions, these are exceptional, limited and based on international human rights law. (1.2.3.L1)
Practice:
1) There are no cases of police harassment of members of social network groups. (1.2.3.P4)
 There are no official data on the number of registered CSOs and organizations cannot register online

There are no sanctions applied for non-registered CSOs. Registration in Tirana is considered as a barrier for the CSOs based outside
Tirana because of additional costs and time needed

The registration process is easy, allowing for a relatively straightforward registration of CSOs
Spontaneity
Legislation:

The laws recognize and do not restrict spontaneous, simultaneous and counter-assemblies.

The law regulates the procedures of prior notifications in case the assembly is organized in public spaces or public passages. When assembles are planned on open public spaces they may be organized even without prior notification of the police

Albania legislation met the basic requirements in order to facilitate and support the implementation and improvement of new technologies, new services and new regulations in the Albanian ICT sector

But still Albania suffer from the low penetration of fixed lines and
Internet, low percentage of PC ownership, high costs of Internet and mobile access and services, low level of awareness of the benefits of the use of ICT, digital gap between urban and rural areas and in
 Official data on the registered CSOs number is needed.
Practice (possible other):

Same as BCSDN’s
Spontaneity
Legislation:

Improvement of Internet penetration even in rural and remote areas;

Revise Law on cost for iIternet and mobile access and services.

Public policies for the development of ICT.
Legislation (possible other):

Same as BCSDN’s
Practice (BCSDN):
N/A
Practice (possible other):
N/A
2.
An enabling financial environment which supports sustainability of CSOs. comparison to other countries in Europe, low level of state subsidies and lack of policies to support all these.
Practice
 There are no cases of police harassment of members of social network groups
2.1. Easy-to-meet financial rules for CSO, which are proportionate to their turn-over and non-commercial activities
2.1.a. CSOs' perception of the ease and effectiveness of financial rules and reporting requirements (disaggregated by type / size of CSO)
1) 
13% of CSOs assessed that prescribed financial rule, obligations of bookkeeping and accounting, referring to their organisations are not clear and understandable, while for 83% were clear and understandable

For 30% of CSOs it is not simple to implement prescribed financial rule, obligations of bookkeeping and accounting, referring to their organisations are not clear and understandable, while for 67% is simple to implement 11
2.1.b. Quality assessment of financial rules (with the focus on built-in mechanisms that financial rules and obligations change as the turn-over and non-commercial activities change).
Financial reporting
Legislation:
1) Financial reporting (including money laundering regulations) and accounting rules take into account the specific nature of the CSOs and are proportionate to the size of the organization and its
Financial reporting
Legislation:

Financial reporting and accounting rules do not take into account the specific nature of the CSOs and are not proportionate to the size of organization and its type/scope of activities
Financial reporting
Legislation (BCSDN):

Improvement of the current tax and financial reporting-related legislation through a separate framework for the CSOs sector taking into account the specific nature of the sector, size of the type/scope of activities. (1.1.2.L3)
Practice:
1) There are no practices of invasive oversight which impose burdensome reporting requirements. (1.1.2.P2)
Practice:

There are cases of political pressure from the government on CSOs playing a watchdog role, by misusing laws on financial inspection, financial management, and control. Tax authorities fined Mjaft! on organization and scope/type of activity
Legislation (possible other):

Same as BCSDN’s
Practice (BCSDN):
 N/A unclear grounds in 2011. Mjaft! filed two cases court against the fine and the tax authorities’ report. And in December 2012, the
Tirana Court of First Instance ruled in favor of Mjaft!
12
Practice (possible other):
11 Ibid 9
12 USAID, The 2011 NGO Sustainability Index/ USAID, The 2012 NGO Sustainability Index
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 16

Economic activities
Legislation:
1) Legislation allows CSOs to engage in economic activities. (1.1.3.L1)
2) CSOs are allowed to receive foreign funding. (1.1.3.L2)
3) CSO are allowed to receive funding from individuals, corporations and other sources(1.1.3.L3)
Practice:
1) Legislation on CSOs engaging in economic activities is implemented and is not burdensome for CSOs. (1.1.3.P1)
2) There are no restrictions (e.g. administrative or financial burden, preapprovals, or channeling such funds via specific bodies) on CSOs to receive foreign funding. (1.1.3.P2)
3) Receipt of funding from individuals, corporations and other sources is easy, effective and without any unnecessary cost or administrative burden. (1.1.3.P3)
4) Endowments are established without major procedural difficulties and operate freely, without administrative burden or high financial cost (2.1.1.P4
)
2.2. Donations are stimulated with adequate legislation and regulations
Economic activities
Legislation:

The Law on Non – Profit Organization allows CSOs to engage directly in economic activities but according to Civil Code they are not permitted to perform profit-making activities; so there seems to be a general misunderstanding as to what profit-making activities means
 According to the Law on Non Profit Organizations, the sources of income for CSOs are from dues, when there are such, grants and donations offered by private or public subjects, local or foreign, as well as income from economic activity and the assets owned by the non-profit organization.
Practice:

Reporting of economic and non-economic activities with the same format is not effective and burdensome for CSOs
 Bank transaction fees and charges which are not allowed as budget costs represents financial burden to receive foreign funding.

The level of tax deduction is not encouraging enough for individuals and corporate donations to CSOs.
 There is no practice for endowments by CSOs in Albania
2.2.a. Quality and applicability/practice of the legal framework for individual and corporate giving
Incentives for individual and corporate giving
Legislation:
1) The law provides tax deductions for individual and corporate donations to CSOs (2.1.2.L1)
2) There are clear requirements/conditions for receiving deductible donations and these include a wide range of publicly beneficial activities. (2.1.2.L2)
Practice:
1) There is a functional procedure in place to claim tax deductions for individual and corporate donations. (2.1.2.P1)
2) CSOs working in the main areas of public interest, including human rights and watchdog organizations, effectively enjoy tax deductible donations. (2.1.2.P3)
Incentives for individual and corporate giving
Legislation:

According to the Law on Sponsorship sponsors are considered only business companies and individuals that have the “quality of merchants”
 The level of tax deduction is not encouraging enough for individual and corporate donations to CSOs

Albanian is one of the few countries in the region that provides no tax incentives for individuals who give charity.

Businesses that pay standard profits tax may claim back tax on donations (classed as a business “sponsorship”) to CSOs of up to 4% of taxable income. Entrepreneurs that pay “small business tax”, the tax on donations can be deducted up to 1% of taxable income.
13
Practice:
 Procedures in place to claim tax deduction are not functional and do not encourage individual and corporate donations

No specific deductions for these types of organizations
 Businesses rarely use tax incentives for charitable giving. On one hand, the law is not known and understood among the business community. On the other hand, corporate philanthropy is at its earliest stages of development in
Albania.
14
2.3. Financial (e.g. tax or in-kind) benefits are available
2.3.a. Quality of the system of tax benefits for the CSOs’ operational and economic activities
13 Albania Needs Assessment Rpeort, TACSO, December 2013, pg. 12
14 Ibid 9
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 17
 Closer monitoring of the invasive oversight which impose burdensome reporting requirements.
Economic activities
Legislation (BCSDN):

Legal clarifications for differentiation between economic and non-economic activity of CSOs
Legislation (possible other):

Same BCSDN’s
Practice (BCSDN):

Different report format for economic and non – economic activities for CSOs
Practice (possible other):

Same BCSDN’s
Incentives for individual and corporate giving
Legislation (BCSDN):

Revision of the law on sponsorship for further fiscal incentives/facilities for donations, as well as simplification of procedures for reimbursement.
Legislation (possible other):

Make legal provisions for individual giving
Practice (BCSDN):

Creation of incentives that will lower the tax burden for enterprises to carry out philanthropic activities

Recognition of the donation (making it public and visible)
Practice (possible other):
 Promote philanthropy and corporate giving

Tax benefits for CSOs
Legislation:
1) The law provides tax free treatment for all grants and donations supporting non-for-profit activity of CSOs. (2.1.1.L1)
Tax benefits for CSOs
Legislation:

The Law on Non – Profit Organizations stipulates that CSOs are exempt from tax on revenues realized from donations and
2)
3)
The law provides tax benefits for economic activities of CSOs.
(2.1.1.L2)
The law provides tax benefits for passive investments of CSOs.
(2.1.1.L3)
4) The law allows the establishment of and provides tax benefits for endowments. (2.1.1.L4) membership dues, and it seems that grants are not included in the exempt from taxes. As a conclusion from the survey, it can be said that there is confusion at the legal framework as well as practice level regarding the exemption of grants from tax scheme (taxes on grants vs. donors’ requests for VAT invoice for grants received).
This omission, may lead to incorrect interpretation by different state
Practice:
1) There is no direct or indirect (hidden) tax on grants reported
(2.1.1.P1) authorities, donors and CSOs in Albania

The economic activity of CSOs is subject to 10% tax on the profit
(similar to companies taxed with the same rate for their profits).
CSOs are required to report under the VAT system even if formally 2) Tax benefits for economic activities of CSOs are effective and
3) support the operation of CSOs (2.1.1.P2)
Passive investments are utilized by CSOs and no sanctions are applied in doing so. (2.1.1.P3)
4) Endowments are established without major procedural difficulties and operate freely, without administrative burden nor high they do not have the necessary turnover from economic activity.

CSOs in Albania are allowed to engage in passive investments, but they are treated in the same way as business activities, and are respectively taxed, with no exceptions provided by the tax financial cost (2.1.1.P4) legislation (except for the bank interest).

Tax benefits from endowments are not applied because Albania does not have any law regulating this issue.
Practice:

There is tax on grants reported applied by donors, not state authorities.

There are no effective tax benefits for economic activities of CSOs that support the operation of CSOs.
 Passive investments are not utilized by CSOs

There is no practice for endowments by CSOs in Albania
2.4. Government support to CSOs is available and provided in a transparent, accountable, fair and non-discriminatory manner
2.4.a. Ratio of amount sought vs. amount approved/disbursed annually through state funding to CSOs. (this proves availability of funds)

The state budged for CSOs is roughly the same from year to year o 2010: total allocated budget was 125,918,000 Lekë 15 out of which 52 organizations have received financial support with a total amount of 62,959,000 Lekë (50% of the total fund). o 2011 the Agency published two calls for grants for CSOs 16: 1) from 69 applications only 31 CSOs won with a total budged of
16,000,000 Lekë (round of 114.500 EUR); 2) for the second call the Agency distributed the fund of 131,960,000 Lekë (round
943.920 EUR) for 69 CSOs. o 2012: 61 CSOs won with a total amount of 56,675,000 Lekë 17.
(round 398.820 EUR).
2.4.b. Quality of state funding frameworks for civil society organisations (focusing on procedural document)
Availability of public funding for institutional development of CSOs, project support and co-financing of EU and other grants
Legislation
1) There is a law or national policy (document) that regulates state support for institutional development for CSOs, project support and co-financing of EU funded projects. (2.2.1.L1)
2) There is a national level mechanism for distribution of public funds to CSOs. (2.2.1.L2)
Availability of public funding for institutional development of CSOs, project support and co-financing of EU and other grants
Legislation:

Albania does not have a national strategy (document) that regulates state support for institutional development of CSOs and targets civil society as a whole.
 Funds are provided only through national mechanism, which has a mandate for distribution of public funds to CSOs and this is Civil
15 http://www.amshc.gov.al/web/raporte/vjetore/2010/Raporti_Vjetor_2010_shqip.pdf
16 http://www.amshc.gov.al/web/raporte/vjetore/2011/Raporti_Vjetor_2011_shqip.pdf
17 This data is evaluated based on the publication that Agency published on its website on 02 April 2013, since the report for 2013 is not yet publish.
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 18
Tax benefits for CSOs
Legislation (BCSDN):

Revision of the legislation regarding the explicit exemption of grants from taxation scheme.
 Regulation of the Fiscal legislation for CSOs

Revision of taxation regime for economic activities.

Exemption from VAT scheme or reduction of VAT value for
CSOs;
Legislation (possible other):
 Legal regulation of tax benefits for endowments.
Practice (BCSDN):

Clarification at the practical level regarding the exemption of grants from tax which will follow legal amendments.

Reimbursement of VAT
Practice (possible other):

Promote passive investments and endowments.
Availability of public funding for institutional development of
CSOs, project support and co-financing of EU and other grants
Legislation (BCSDN):

Preparation and approval of a national strategy regulating the state support for institutional development of CSOs

Restructuring of CSSA to improve its functioning, making it more supportive for the sector, in conformity with its role as mandated by the law

3) Public funds for CSOs are clearly planned within the state budget.
(2.2.1.L3)
4) There are clear procedures for CSO participation in all phases of the public funding cycle(2.2.1.L4)
Practice:
1) Available public funding responds to the needs of the CSO sector.
(2.2.1.P1)
2) There are government bodies with a clear mandate for distribution and/or monitoring of the distribution of state funding.

(2.2.1.P2)
3) Funding is predictable, not cut drastically from one year to another; and the amount in the budget for CSOs is easy to identify. (2.2.1.P3)
4) CSO participation in the public funding cycle is transparent and meaningful. (2.2.1.P4)
Procedures and transparency of distribution of public funding
Legislation:
1) The procedure for distribution of public funds is transparent and legally binding. (2.2.2.L1)
2) The criteria for selection are clear and published in advance.
(2.2.2.L2)
3) There are clear procedures addressing issues of conflict of interest in decision-making. (2.2.2.L3)
Practice:
1) Information relating to the procedures for funding and information on funded projects is publicly available. (2.2.2.P1)
2) State bodies follow the procedure and apply it in a harmonized way. (2.2.2.P2)
3) The application requirements are not too burdensome for CSOs.
(2.2.3.P3)
4) Decisions on tenders are considered fair and conflict of interest situations are declared in advance (2.2.3.P4)
System for accountability, monitoring and evaluation of public funding
Legislation:
1) The procedure for distribution of public funds prescribes clear measures for accountability, monitoring and evaluation. (2.2.3.L1)
2) There are prescribed sanctions for CSOs that misuse funds which are proportional to the violation of procedure. (2.2.3.L2)
Practice:
1) Monitoring is carried out continuously and in accordance with predetermined and objective indicators. (2.2.3.P1)
2) Regular evaluation of effects/impact of public funds is carried out by state bodies and is publicly available. (2.2.3.P2)
Availability of the state non-financial support
Legislation:
1) Legislation allows state authorities to allocate non-financial support, such as state property, renting space without financial
Society Support Agency (CSSA).

The field of priorities of CSSA are decided conform the priorities of
Albanian Government, and are not based on a consultation with
CSOs sector.
 The Law and the regulation of the procedures of financing with grants of the agency are prescribed clearly and in details, in support of a transparent process in all its steps
Practice:
 State support through public funding does not respond to the CSOs needs.

CSOs representatives in the supervisory board of CSSA are “pro government civil society activists”, which affects the agency’s impartiality. Watchdog organizations and movements campaigning against government policies are unlikely to receive support from the
Agency.

Co-financing of EU programs and projects through public funds is not a practice in Albania

Participation of CSOs in public financing cycle is not transparent
Procedures and transparency of distribution of public funding
Legislation:

The procedure for destribution of public funds as described in the law of CSSA and its internal regulation, allows for a transparent and legally binding procedure.

The list of criteria is published during the lunch of the call for proposals.

Procedures addressing issues of conflict of interest in decisionmaking are prescribed in the CSSA law.
Practice:

Information are publicly announced on the official website of the competent authorities and/or daily newspaper.

The areas and amount of funds distributed are prescribed clearly in the annual reports of CSSA, but the impact of the projects funded is missing.

The procedures of application are not simplified and CSOs encounter unnecessary bureaucracies.

Decisions on tenders are not considered fair and transparent.
System for accountability, monitoring and evaluation of public funding
Legislation:

The procedure for distribution of public funds and sanctions are prescribed in the CSSA Law
Practice:

Internal monitoring is carried during the project implementation by
CSSA but without consolidated standards

The regular evaluation of effects/impact of public funds is not carried out by CSSA
Availability of the state non-financial support
Legislation:
 Legislation allows state authorities to allocate non-financial support, such as state property, renting space without/ or with reduced
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 19
Legislation (possible other):

Same as BCSDN’s
Practice (BCSDN):

Increase state support for the co-financing of EU funds
 Increase external monitoring of CSSA
 CSSA should have a coordinating role among CSOs

Establishment of mechanisms to increase transparency of public funding to CSOs
Practice (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN’s
Procedures and transparency of distribution of public funding
Legislation (BCSDN):

N/A
Legislation (possible other):
 N/A
Practice (BCSDN):

The procedures of application should be simplified and unnecessary bureaucracies should be removed
Practice (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN’s
System for accountability, monitoring and evaluation of public funding
Legislation (BCSDN):

Develop a regulation with clear system of accountability, monitoring and evaluation.
Legislation (possible other):

Same as BCSDN
Practice (BCSDN):

More studies for the impact of the projects.
Practice (possible other):

Improve monitoring and evaluation practice of the public funding cycle.
Availability of the state non-financial support
Legislation (BCSDN):

Develop a clear procedure/guidelines for non-financial support of the state

compensation (time-bound), free training, consultations and other resources, to CSOs. (2.2.4.L1)
2) The non-financial support is provided under clearly prescribed processes, based on objective criteria and does not privilege any group. (2.2.4.L2)
Practice:
1) CSOs use non-financial state support(2.2.4.P1)
2) CSOs are treated in an equal or more supportive manner as compared to other actors when providing state non-financial resources. (2.2.4.P2)
3) There are no cases of state authorities granting non-financial support only to CSOs which do not criticize its work; or of cases of depriving critical CSOs of support; or otherwise discriminating based on loyalty, political affiliation or other unlawful terms.
(2.2.4.P3)
CSOs’ engagement in different state services and equality of competition among all providers for state contracts
Legislation:
1) Existing legislation allows CSOs to provide services in various areas, such as education, healthcare, social services .(3.3.1.L1)
2) CSOs have no barriers to providing services that are not defined by law (“additional” services). (3.3.1.L2)
3) Existing legislation does not add additional burdensome requirements on CSOs that do not exist for other service providers. .(3.3.1.L2)
Practice:
1) CSOs are able to obtain contracts in competition with other providers and are engaged in various services (e.g., education, health, research, and training). (3.3.1.P1)
2) CSOs are included in all stages of developing and providing services (needs assessment, determining the services that best address the needs, monitoring and evaluation). (3.3.1.P2)
3) When prior registration/licensing is required, the procedure for obtaining that is not overly burdensome. (3.3.1.P3)
Commitments of state to funding services and predictability and longterm availability of the funding
Legislation:
1) The budget provides funding for various types of services which could be provided by CSOs, including multi-year funding. (3.3.2.L1)
2) There are no legal barriers to CSOs receiving public funding for the provision of different services (either through procurement or through another contracting or grants mechanism). (3.3.2.L2)
3) CSOs can sign long-term contracts for provision of services
(3.3.2.L3)
Practice:
1) CSOs are recipients of funding for services. (3.3.2.P1)
2) CSOs receive sufficient funding to cover the basic costs of the services they are contracted to provide, including proportionate institutional (overhead) costs. (3.3.2.P2)
3) There are no delays in payments and the funding is flexible with the aim of providing the best quality of services. (3.3.2.P3) financial compensation

There no clear procedures/guidelines for non-financial support
Practice:

Non-financial support from the state is required by the CSOs, as: state property, making renting space without financial compensation (time), training, consulting and other free resources for CSOs

There are cases, especially at local level when a local authority ensures the non – financial support, but they are sporadic cases

CSSA do not provide non-financial support to CSOs
CSOs’ engagement in different state services and equality of competition among all providers for state contracts
Legislation:

The Law on Non-Profit Organization based on which CSOs exercises activities in the good and benefit of the public, and the Law on
Social Assistance and Services allows CSOs to deliver privately funded social services as well as public services with funding by state budged.

To deliver social care services, CSOs need to obtain a license by the
Ministry of Social Welfare and Youth based on criteria and procedures defined in a decision by the Council of Ministers
Practice:
 The contracting of CSOs from the state is limited in basic social services related with the reintegration of persons in needs, as the victims of trafficking and domestic violence, or Roma integration.

CSOs are not included in all stages of developing and providing services. They are invited to participate in the procurement procedure for the delivery of the service, after it is determined.

The procedure for obtaining a prior licensing is somehow burdensome for CSOs
Commitments of state to funding services and predictability and longterm availability of the funding
Legislation:

Financing opportunities from the state have been low and the governments have failed to contract CSOs for an inclusive strategy to support the development of civil society.

The tender process is very difficult, the expenses for the preparation of the required documents are high, and the CSOs have no liquidity to cover these expenses.
 If there are cases of state funding, the funding available is for short term period, maximum of one year.
Practice:

Most of CSOs do not have revenues from public procurement, not from the state contracts.
 The fund is disbursed at the end of the project, making it difficult the implementations of the project for the CSOs that do not have liquidities to cover the expenses. In some cases, the funding to not
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 20
Legislation (possible other):

Same as BCSDN
Practice (BCSDN):

Increase non-financial support for CSOs
 Increased role of CSSA in providing non-financial support to
CSOs
Practice (possible other):

Same as BCSDN’s
CSOs’ engagement in different state services and equality of competition among all providers for state contracts
Legislation (BCSDN):

Establishment of easy procedures for CSOs to obtain a license
Legislation (possible other):
 Aforementioned recommendation needs to take into consideration other players in the market of social service provision.
Practice (BCSDN):
 Involvement of CSOs in all stages of service provision
Practice (possible other):

Increase capacities of the CSOs so they are equal player in acquiring the licences for provision of social services.
Commitments of state to funding services and predictability and long-term availability of the funding
Legislation (BCSDN):

Introduction of Social Contraction as a new practice of public service provision through CSOs
Legislation (possible other):

Enable longer-term contracts for provision of social services.
Practice (BCSDN):
 Simplified procedures of payment
Practice (possible other):

Improve frequency of payment distribution, or introduce pre-payment in contracts for social services.

3 Civil society and public institutions work in partnership through dialogue and cooperation, based on willingness, trust and mutual acknowledgment around common interests
Clarity of procedures for contracting services and transparency in selection of service providers including CSOs
Legislation:
1) There is a clear and transparent procedure through which the
4)
2) funding for services is distributed among providers.(3.3.3.L1)
2) Price is not the lead criterion for selection of service providers and best value is determined by both service quality and a financial assessment of contenders. (3.3.3.L2)
3) There are clear guidelines on how to ensure transparency and avoid conflict of interests. (3.3.3.L3)
There is a right to appeal against competition results. (3.3.3.L4)
Practice:
1) Many services are contracted to CSOs. (3.3.3.P1)
Competitions are considered fair and conflicts of interest are avoided. (3.3.3.P2)
3) State officials have sufficient capacity to organize the procedures.
(3.3.3.P3)
Clarity of a system for accountability, monitoring and evaluation of service provision
Legislation:
1) There is legal possibility for monitoring both spending and the
2) quality of service providers. (3.3.4.L1)
There are clear quality standards and monitoring procedures for services. (3.3.4.L2)
Practice:
1) CSOs are not subject to excessive control. (3.3.4.P1)
2) Monitoring is performed on a regular basis according to preannounced procedures and criteria. (3.3.4.P2)
3) Regular evaluation of quality and effects/impact of services provided is carried out and publicly available. (3.3.4.P3) cover administrative costs of the organization needed for the implementation of the project.

There are delays in payment and funding is not flexible.
Clarity of procedures for contracting services and transparency in selection of service providers including CSOs
Legislation:

The Public Procurement law prescribes clear procedures and types of procedures for the funds for services distribution.

Price is the lead criteria for selection of service providers, not taking into consideration the quality of the service delivered.

There are not clear guidance to ensure transparency and avoid conflict of interest.
Practice:
 Few service are contracted to CSOs

Lack of information and clarity regarding the legal framework and technicalities for CSOs contracting among the public officials dealing with procurement
Clarity of a system for accountability, monitoring and evaluation of service provision
Legislation:

The Law on public procurement foresees obligations valid throughout the performance of the contract for service providers.
The Law foresees standards for service provider’s qualifications, but not for the monitoring procedures.
Practice:

CSOs are not subject of excessive control

The regular publication on impact of services is not available for the public.

No regular evaluations on the impact of the services are carried out and publicly available.
Changing relations CSOs and government
3.1. Public institutions recognise the importance of CSOs in improving good governance through CSOs' inclusion in decision making processes
3.1.a. Percentage of laws/bylaws, strategies and policy reforms effectively* consulted with CSOs
* in terms of:
- adequate access to information
- sufficient time to comment
- selection and representativeness / diversity of working groups
- acknowledgement of input
- degree to which input is taken into account
- feedback / publication of consultation results
3.1.b Quality* of structures and mechanisms in place for dialogue and cooperation between CSOs and public institutions
* in terms of:
- CSO representation in general
- representation of smaller/weaker CSOs
- its visibility and availability
- government perception of quality of structures and mechanisms
- CSOs perception of structures and mechanisms
CSO-government cooperation strategic document
Legislation:
CSO-government cooperation strategic document
Legislation:
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 21
Clarity of procedures for contracting services and transparency in selection of service providers including CSOs
Legislation (BCSDN):

Regulation of the selection criterion based on both service quality and financial assessment of contenders
Legislation (possible other):

Same as BCSDN’s.
Practice (BCSDN):

Training for public officials on CSOs contracting for service delivery.
Practice (possible other):

Same as BCSDN’s.
Clarity of a system for accountability, monitoring and evaluation of service provision
Legislation (BCSDN):

Improvement in the Law on Public procurements
Legislation (possible other):

Ensure that legislation recognises quality standards of provision of the services.
Practice (BCSDN):

Increased monitoring and evaluation of impact of services delivered by service providers
Practice (possible other):

Same as BCSDN’s
16/ 100 CSO-government cooperation strategic document
Legislation (BCSDN):

1) There are strategic documents dealing with the state-CSO relationship and civil society development. (3.1.1.L1)
2) The strategic document includes goals and measures as well as funding available and clear allocation of responsibilities (action plans incl. indicators). (3.1.1.L2)
3) The strategic document embraces measures that have been developed in consultation with and/or recommended by CSOs.
(3.1.1.L3)
Practice:
1) CSOs from different areas of interest regularly participate in all phases of the strategic document development, implementation and evaluation. (3.1.1.P1)
2) There are examples demonstrating that cooperation between state and CSOs and civil society development is improved and implemented according to or beyond the measures envisaged in the strategic document. (3.1.1.P2)
3) The implementation of the strategic document is monitored, evaluated and revised periodically. (3.1.1.P3)
Accessibility of all draft policies and laws to the public (easiness and timelines)
Legislation:
1) Existing legislation obliges public institutions to make all draft and adopted laws and policies public, and exceptions are clearly defined and in line with international norms and best practices. (3.2.2.L1)
2) Clear mechanisms and procedures for access to public information/documents exist. (3.2.2.L2)
3) There are clearly prescribed sanctions for civil servants/units for breaching the legal requirements on access to public information.
(3.2.2.L3)
Practice:
1) Public institutions actively publish draft and adopted laws and policies, unless they are subject to legally prescribed exceptions.
(3.2.2.P1)
2) Public institutions answer the majority of requests for access to public information within the deadline prescribed by law, in a clear format, provide written explanations on the reasons for refusal, and highlight the right to appeal and the procedure for appealing.
(3.2.2.P2)
3) Cases of violations of the law are sanctioned. (3.2.2.P3)
Representativeness of CSOs in discussions in cross-sector bodies and clarity of criteria and selection process
Legislation:
1) Existing legislation requires public institutions to invite CSO representatives on to different decision-making and/or advisory bodies created by public institutions. (3.2.3.L1)
2) There are clear guidelines on how to ensure appropriate representation from civil society, based on transparent and predetermined criteria. (3.2.3.L2)
Practice:
1) Decision-making and advisory bodies on issues and policies relevant for civil society generally include CSO representatives. (3.2.3.P1)
18 Ibid 9 pg. 19
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013
 Albania does not have a national strategy for the cooperation between CSOs and Government.

There is lack of clear mechanisms for consultations with CSOs that would ensure that civil society are properly consulted in the process of drafting and adopting legislation or policies
Practice:

There is a lack of a strategic document dealing with state – CSO relationship and civil society development.
 Encouraged by the open and collaborative approach demonstrated by the new government coming into power after the Parliamentary elections of June 23, 2013, the civil society sector has started the dialogue on a series of issues including the Charter. They became the subject of the National Conference “Social Partners – Time for
Action” organized by Partners Albania, in December 2013, as the first conference called by civil society with a new government. The
Conference resulted with a Statement from the representatives of
CSOs. The revision and presentation of The Charter for Civil Society to the Albanian Parliament for approval in 2014 was one of the requests of the Statement.
Accessibility of all draft policies and laws to the public (easiness and timelines)
Legislation:

There are no binding rules or procedures for public authorities requiring them to publish draft policies and draft laws.

Law on the right of the information on the official documents guarantees the right of information on official documents and defines clear procedures for access to public information, conditions, exception and deadlines
 There are clearly prescribed sanctions for civil servants/units for breaching the legal requirements on access to public information.
Practice:


Draft laws are not published by public authorities.
Public access in draft policies and draft laws is difficult (by 45% of the CSOs)

Deadlines for providing comments generally remain too short and there are no clear rules on public consultation.
18
Representativeness of CSOs in discussions in cross-sector bodies and clarity of criteria and selection process
Legislation:

There is no specific law regulating the issue of CSOs as equal partners represented in advisory bodies, but in different laws it is sanctioned the creation of advisory bodies

There are laws which stipulates the creation of an advisory body they are in minority and can hardly influence any policy initiative
Practice:
 There is lack of information among CSOs regarding the existence and functioning of such bodies/structures
22
 Adopt a national strategy for the cooperation between CSOs and Government.
Legislation (possible other):

Same as BCSDN’s
Practice (BCSDN):

N/A
Practice (possible other):

Follow up on further developments of the Charter and
Statement from the CSOs towards government.
Accessibility of all draft policies and laws to the public (easiness and timelines)
Legislation (BCSDN):

Drafting of binding rules/ procedures for public authorities requiring them to publish draft policies and draft laws
Legislation (possible other):

Same as BCSDN
Practice (BCSDN):

N/A.
Practice (possible other):
 N/A
Representativeness of CSOs in discussions in cross-sector bodies and clarity of criteria and selection process
Legislation (BCSDN):

Creation of a National Council for Collaboration between
Government and CSOs
Legislation (possible other):

Same as BCSDN
Practice (BCSDN):
 High transparency, trust, collaboration, two – way and consistent communications based on clear rules and procedures.

2) CSO representatives in these bodies are enabled to freely present and defend their positions, without being sanctioned. (3.2.3.P2)
3) CSO representatives are selected through selection processes which are considered fair and transparent. (3.2.3.P3)
4) Participation in these bodies does not prevent CSOs from using alternative ways of advocacy or promoting alternative stand-points which are not in line with the position of the respective body.
(3.2.3.P4)
Recognition of the state, through the operation of its institutions, of the importance of the development of and cooperation with the CS
Legislation:
1) There is a national level institution or mechanism with a mandate to facilitate cooperation with civil society organizations (e.g.,
Unit/Office for cooperation; contact points in ministries; council).
(3.1.2.L1)
2) There are binding provisions on the involvement of CSOs in the decisions taken by the competent institution or mechanism(s).
(3.1.2.L2)
Practice:
1) The national level institution or mechanism(s) has sufficient resources and mandate for facilitating CSO-government dialogue, discussing the challenges and proposing the main policies for the development of Civil Society. (3.1.2.P1)
2) CSOs are regularly consulted and involved in processes and decisions by the competent institution or mechanism(s). (3.1.2.P2)
Recognition of the state, through the operation of its policies and strategies, of the importance of the development of and cooperation with the CS
Legislation:
1) There are clearly defined standards on the involvement of CSOs in the policy and decision making processes in line with best regulatory practices prescribing minimum requirements which every policymaking process needs to fulfil. (3.2.1.L1)
2) State policies provide for educational programs/trainings for civil servants on CSO involvement in the work of public institutions.
(3.2.1.L2)
3) Internal regulations require specified units or officers in government, line ministries or other government agencies to coordinate, monitor and report CSO involvement in their work. (3.2.1.L3)
Practice:
1) Public institutions routinely invite all interested CSOs to comment on policy/legal initiatives at an early stage. (3.2.1.P1)
2) CSOs are provided with adequate information on the content of the draft documents and details of the consultation with sufficient time to respond. (3.2.1.P2)
3) Written feedback on the results of consultations is made publicly available by public institutions, including reasons why some recommendations were not included. (3.2.1.P3)
4) The majority of civil servants in charge of drafting public policies have successfully completed the necessary educational programs/training.(3.2.1.P4)
5) Most of the units/officers coordinating and monitoring public consultations are functional and have sufficient capacity. (3.2.1.P5)
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013
 Participation of CSOs in advisory bodies is considered difficult

The selection procedures are considered unclear and non – transparent by CSOs (by 57% of CSOs).

Participation in these bodies does not prevent CSOs from using alternative ways of advocacy or promoting alternative stand-points which are not in line with the position of the respective body
Recognition of the state, through the operation of its institutions, of the importance of the development of and cooperation with the CS
Legislation:

There are unit in ministries covering relations with civil society but always within the scope of the ministries.

Binding provisions on the involvement of CSOs in the decision making process do not exist.
Practice:

National mechanisms at ministry level lack the capacities to facilitate CSO-government dialogue.

Relationship between the government and CSOs has been weak and sporadic, and the capacities of public institutions to facilitate the dialogue have lacked.
Recognition of the state, through the operation of its policies and strategies, of the importance of the development of and cooperation with the CS
Legislation:

There are no binding norms on the involvement of CSOs in the policy and decision making processes.

Civil servants lack the capacities and knowledge on CSOs involvement in the work of public institutions.

Transparency and access to information remains poor and problematic.
Practice:

Involvement of CSOs in policy making and decision making have been characterized by spontaneity, selectivity of participants in the process using the political criteria or limited it to the certain stages of the process.

Information on the draft documents is not provided in time

Written feedback on the results of the consultations is not provided and reasons for not taking into consideration the recommendations provided by CSOs are not provided.

There are no available data regarding the educational programs/ trainings of the civil servants who are in charge of drafting public policies.

The units coordinating and monitoring public consultations do not have sufficient capacities.

Many parts of public administration are suspicious about CSOs that are often seen as political opponents of the Government and, therefore, as potential obstacle to the ongoing reform process.
23
Practice (possible other):

Same as BCSDN’s
Recognition of the state, through the operation of its institutions, of the importance of the development of and cooperation with the
CS
Legislation (BCSDN):

Drafting and approval of binding provision for the involvement of CSOs in decision making processes
Legislation (possible other):

Same as BCSDN’s
Practice (BCSDN):
 CSOs should be involved in all phases of the process
Practice (possible other):

Same as BCSDN’s
Recognition of the state, through the operation of its policies and strategies, of the importance of the development of and cooperation with the CS
Legislation (BCSDN):

Bringing into force binding norms for central and local institutions regarding consultation with CSOs in all areas that constitute the public interest.
Legislation (possible other):

Same as BCSDN
Practice (BCSDN):

Establishment and empowerment of the state structures and mechanisms supporting public participation

Increase capacities of public officers in charge with the organization, coordination and monitoring of public consultations
Practice (possible other):

Same as BCSDN’s

There is also the perception that CSOs exist to serve the interests of private individuals or selective fractions of society rather than the public at large. On the other hand, CSOs have their own concerns about the government. According to different surveys, CSOs do not believe that government considers civil society a serious or important actor in its efforts to increase transparency and accountability.
19
CSOs Capacities
4.1. CSOs' internal governance structures are transparent and accountable to members/constituents/beneficiaries 4.
Capable, transparent and accountable CSOs
4.1.a. Percentage of CSOs publishing their governance structure and internal documents (statutes, codes of conduct etc.)
4.1.a. independent survey run by TACSO
4.2. CSOs are able to communicate the results of their activities to the public

56% of CSOs believe that decision making in CSOs in Albania is in compliance with prescribed rules and laws of the organisation,
22% believe that decisions are made by some individual or top management, 21% that decisions are made with prescribed rules including consultations with the employees and volunteers

72% of CSOs stated that decision making in their organisation is in compliance with prescribed rules and laws of the organisation, 10% stated that decisions are made by some individual or top management, 18% that decisions are made with prescribed rules including consultations with the employees and volunteers

77% of CSOs stated that they have prescribed obligations to inform the members, or Managerial or Supervisory Board, customers or general public about the results of your work

89% CSOs inform members of their organisation about the results of their work, 86% inform founders of their organisation,
73% inform management board, 78% inform beneficiaries of their organisation, 64% inform general public, 65% general assembly, and 65% inform supervisory board 20
4.2.a. External perception of importance and impact of CSOs activities.
4.2.a. independent survey run by TACSO  33.1% of surveyed trust to NGOs in their country, general population trust the most to media 63.7% of surveyed, and the least to political parties 19.2% of surveyed

60.7% of general population do not trust to NGOs

35.4% of the general population believes that NGOs support dealing with problems in their country, 62.6% of population believe that media supports in dealing with problems, and political party support the least 24.5%

58% of CSOs believe that the reason for lack of public presence of CSOs is insufficient interest of the media in reporting on CSOs activities, while 40% of CSOs believe it is due insufficient (or inadequate) CSO activities

Among topics and issues listed in the survey education was assessed as the most relevant for people in Albania 90%, human
19 Ibid 10 pg. 18
20 Ibid 9
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 24

and women, youth 86%, rural development was assessed as the least relevant 71%21

79% of surveyed believe that CSOs in their country are active in fighting problems in human rights area, 72% believe in the area of youth, and 82% in rights of women

64% of surveyed believe that CSOs in their country are not
active in fighting problems in protection of animals, 59% believe in the area of rural development, and 56% in safety 22
4.3. CSOs are transparent about their programme activities and financial management
4.3.a. Percentage of CSOs making their (audited) financial accounts and annual reports publicly available
4.3.a independent survey run by TACSO  48% CSOs stated that they publish their statute on their web page, 20% stated that the statute is accessible to the public, 36% stated that the statute is not accessible to the public

4% of CSOs stated that their statute is accessible to public from their office, 53% stated that it is accessible from the Facebook
 33% of CSOs stated that they have a rulebook and it available on their web page, 14% stated that they have a rulebook, 14% stated that have a rulebook, but it is not accessible to the public, and 41% stated that they do not have a rulebook

36% of CSOs believe that up to 10% of CSOs in Albania publish organisational Annual Program Statement of Work, 23% believe that only 11-30% of CSOs do so, 27% believe that 31%-70% organisation publish APS of Work, and 13% believe that more than 70% do so

38% of CSOs stated that they publish their APS of Work on their web page, and 51% stated that they do not have APS of Work accessible to public

38% of CSOs belie that up to 10% of CSOs publish organisational financial reports, 21% of CSOs believe that 11%-30% publish financial report, 17% believe that from 31-70% and 23% of CSOs believe that more than 70% of CSO publish financial reports

21% of CSOs stated that they have financial reports accessible to public and published on the web page, while 62% stated they do not have financial reports available to the public
 43% of CSOs believe that up to 10% of CSOs publish audited reports, and 23% believe that more than 70% publish audited reports

21% of CSOs stated that they have audited financial reports accessible to the public by publishing it on their web page, 67% of CSOs stated that they do not have audited financial reports available to the public 23
4.4. CSOs monitor and evaluate the results and impact of their work
4.4.a. Share of CSOs that monitor and evaluate their projects and programmes using baselines and quality indicators
21 Topics and issues assessed included: education, social care and humanitarian activities, human rights, employment, the young and their problems, culture and art, ecology, violence, rights of women, fight against corruption, fight agaiinst drug abuse and aloholism, safety, overseen government and local governemnets performances, rural development, protection of animals.
22 Ibid 9
23 Ibid 9
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 25

5. Effective CSOs
4.4.a. independent survey run by TACSO
5.1. CSO activities are guided by strategic long-term organisational planning
 27% of CSOs evaluate their projects pro forma, while 66% evaluate projects with the purpose of establishing efficiency and drawing a lesson for further projects

42% of CSOs use external evaluation for realisation of their projects

26% use external evaluator for assessment of implementation of their organisational strategy

76% of CSOs have established system for assessment of efficiency for realisation of conducted projects

66% of CSOs have established system for assessment for implementation of organisation’s strategic plan 24
5.1.a. Share of CSOs which have developed strategic plans including human resources development activities in order to attract and retain talent
5.1.a. independent survey run by TACSO 
73% of CSOs have developed strategic plan, 18% do not have a strategic plan

81% use internal evaluation when employing staff in their organisation

32% of CSOs neither have established system for assessment of efficiency of employees in their organisation, nor 36% have internal strategic plan dealing with these issues
 63% of CSOs stated that they have a human resources development plan aimed at attacking and keeping talented associates, while 18% stated that they are developing such plan

82% of CSO stated that they manage to keep talented associates, and 80% believe that they manage to attract quality new people 25
5.2. CSOs use research and other forms of evidence to underpin their activities
5.2.a. Number of CSOs' who use adequate argumentation and analysis for achieving advocacy goals
5.2.a. independent survey run by TACSO 
79% of CSOs active in public advocacy, mainly/frequently uses research for their advocacy actions, while 21% of them mainly/very rarely use research
 84% of CSOs believe that they have enough information at their disposal

61% of CSOs use official data of national statistical offices, ministries, 13% conduct their own studies, 17% use international institutions such as the World Bank, UNICEF, EBRD 26
5.3. CSOs regularly network within and outside country borders and make use of coalition-building for increased impact in campaigning and advocacy
5.3.a. Share of CSOs taking part in local, national, regional and international networks
5.3.a. independent survey run by TACSO 
41% of CSOs indicated that they do not belong to any international network, 27% stated that belong to one international network, 12% stated that they belong to 2 international networks, 21% belong to more than 3 international networks
 6% of CSOs are not active in any of international networks, 45%
24 Ibid 9
25 Ibid 9
26 Ibid 9
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 26

are active in one international network, 20% are active in 2 international networks, and 27% are active in more than 3 international networks
 28% of CSOs indicated that they do not belong to any national network, 32% stated that belong to one national network, 14% stated that they belong to 2 national networks, 26% belong to more than 3 national networks
 10% of CSOs are not active in any of national networks, 44% are active in one national network, 15% are active in 2 national networks, and 31% are active in more than 3 national networks

56% of CSOs indicated that they do not belong to any local network, 19% stated that belong to one local network, 7% stated that they belong to 2 local networks, 17% belong to more than 3 local networks

5% of CSOs are not active in any of local networks, 45% are active in one local network, 14% are active in 2 local networks, and 34% are active in more than 3 local networks

30% of CSOs do not find CSO networks efficient, while 70% find them efficient

52% of CSO stated that their contributed in terms of the exchange of experience/knowledge from being member of a network 27
6.1. Fund-raising activities are rooted in CSOs' long-term strategic plans and the core mission of the organisation 6.
Financially sustainable
CSOs
6.1.a. Percentage of CSOs that confirm that they are able to raise funds according to their strategic plans
6.1.a. independent survey run by TACSO 
56% of CSOs believe that CSOs in Albania mainly adopt to donors’ priorities and collect funds also for other activities not in line with their organisational strategic plan, while 44% of CSOs believe that CSOs in Macedonia mainly stich with their strategic plan and collect funds for activities in line with their strategic plan

66% of CSOs stated that they mainly stick t their strategic plans and collects fund for activities in line with its strategic plan, while 35% stated that they adapt to donors’ priorities and collect funds also for other activities not in line with its strategic plans 28
6.2. CSO have a diversified funding base, including membership fees, corporate/individual giving and social entrepreneurship
6.2.a. Diversity in CSO sources of income
6.2.a. independent survey run by TACSO  14% of CSOs stated that they did not have any donors in the past year, 10% had one donor, 28% had between 2-3 donors, 10% had 4-5 donors, and 9% over 6 donors

40% of CSOs had income from membership fees, 27% had from citizens, 20% form local self-government and/or regional administration, 50% from other foreign private or state resources, 25% form the EU funds, 19% form governments/ministries/state administration bodies, 25% from private companies operating in the country, 9% from public companies

60% of CSOs did not have income from membership fees, 73%
27 Ibid 9
28 Ibid 9
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 27

did not have from citizens, 80% form local self-government and/or regional administration, 50% from other foreign private or state resources, 75% form the EU funds, 81% form governments/ministries/state administration bodies, 75% from private companies operating in the country, 91% from public companies 29
29 Ibid 9
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 28