TURKEY BASELINE REPORT,
APRIL 2014
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
1
Synthesis of the baseline survey
COMPONENT 1: CONDUCIVE ENVIRONMENT
Objective 1: An enabling legal and policy environment, for the exercise of the rights of freedom, expression, assembly and association
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
The definition of civil society and civil society organizations are absent in the related legislation. The legal framework only recognizes associations and
foundations as legal entities of CSOs and other organizational forms such as platforms, initiatives, social enterprises and grant-making foundations are not
recognized by law.
Freedom of Association legislation is broadly in line with EU standards, but problems still continue with primary, and more importantly in secondary legislation by
limiting interpretation of primary legislation and thus limiting freedom of association.
There is a legal framework for establishing associations (including umbrella organisations as federations and confederations) and foundations. There’s also a
legislation that regulates establishment of “cooperatives” that can be called community-based enterprises. There is no legal framework for establishing other types
of organizations such as platforms, networks, non-profit companies. The Law on Association and Foundation and respective regulations, rather then laying down
freedom of association and rights as a framework, provide very detailed regulations that provides limitations, restrictions, penalties, fines, and bureaucratic
procedures. Concepts such as ‘general morality, ‘Turkish family structure’, ‘national security’, ‘public order’ which are prevalent in the legal framework do not have
concrete definition thus are open for interpretation of state officials and the judiciary. Individuals and legal persons with legal capacity have the right to establish an
association without having to obtain any prior approval. However, there are certain restrictions in special laws applicable to the members of the Turkish Armed
Forces and police force and the officers in public institutions and organizations that have civil servant status. The law defines the freedom of children under the age
of 18 to establish an association pursuant to certain special regulations. There are restrictions applicable to people who are not Turkish citizens. Registration and
application conditions are set out in the laws. Registration is required to operate as a CSO and space for informal associational activities is not recognized. To
establish an association, the administration requests 7 founding members. Within 6 months of operation, the association should reach to at least 16 members to
be able to fulfil the required number of members in the two legally required boards of the association. Minimum number of founding members is not sought for
foundations, but it is required to own assets of a total of minimum 50.000 TRY (approximately 17,500 EUR) to be able to be founded. It is not allowed to establish
foundations supporting a specific race or community member (Article 101, Civil Law), Freedom of association in the form of foundations to support an ethnic or
religious group and/or identity is restricted. It is not allowed to establish neither association nor foundation, which is against ‘morality’, where ‘morality’ is very
vague term. The legal framework allows for freedom of international operation for associations and foundations.
Laws do not allow establishing CSOs online. Operating without a registration is sanctioned. Law on Associations regulates the registration process and the timeline
for registration of associations and foundations and Law on Foundations and it varies depending on the workload of the courts. The necessary information and
documentation that is required to found an association are quite comprehensive and for many groups are difficult to comply with. In addition, the DoA publicized a
legal opinion on its website stating that an association cannot share the same address/premises with another legal or private entity. Foreign
foundations/associations are required to get permission for their operations and cooperation in Turkey.The total number of foreign CSOs that received the permit
to found associations, branches or representations in Turkey is only 102. While only four (4) CSOs were given permission in 2012, the number has increased to 27 in
2013. There are no barriers on CSOs’ international communication and cooperation; however, regional disparities exist with respect to the frequency of such
activities. Concepts present in the Law on Assoications and Foundations create inconsistent and arbitrary interpretation and implementation between different
state institutions and even within the same organization. Some state authorities continue to request court cases for closure LGBTI CSOs, basing their legal thesis on
the ‘general morality’.
The legal framework is complicated, restrictive, bureaucratic and is focused on limitations rather than freedoms, defining penalties and sanctions that do not
meet the principle of proportionality. In addition, monitoring and inspection of CSOs activities are not clearly defined resulting in inconsistent and ad-hoc
implementation in frequency, duration and scope.
Foundations and Associations Laws provides for audit of associations and foundations to determine whether their activities are in line with the purposes set out in
their bylaws. There is no special provision in respect of state protection interference by the third party. There is no holistic approach or implementation when it
comes to the financial reporting and accounting rules and their sensitivity and proportionality to the nature and size of the CSOs. Although the applicable legislation
gives the authority to prepare special accounting regulations for associations and foundations to the relevant administrative bodies, there is no such special
regulation in practice. Sanctions for breaching legal requirements are regulated under the applicable legislation. There are specific provisions in the law with respect
to liquidation and dissolution procedures that regulate automatic dissolution, temporary suspension of activities and termination of associations and foundations.
The framework as laid down in the legal framework regarding the inspections and audit to be conducted by state authorities is quite vague. There are examples of
state interference in internal matters of associations/foundations in practice. With respect to audit of CSOs that do rights-based activities, there is a problem of
unequal treatment of organizations, as the frequency, duration and the scope of audits differ from organization to organization. With respect to audit and
sanctions, regional disparities, disproportionate administrative and judicial practices are observed. Due to lack of defined terms in the applicable legislation certain
CSOs are facing sanctions. Despite the existence of Guide on Inspections of Duties and Operations of Associations published by DoA that aims to establish a
standardized frame for the role and duties of the auditors, civil society monitoring reports reveal that inconsistent implementation continues.
There is insufficient tax and other incentives for private donations and sponsorship, making many of CSO dependent on public (often international) project grants.
The Law on Collection of Aid providing very detailed regulations and bureaucratic obligations continues to be another major obstacle for CSOs to raise funds and
maintain their sustainability. According to this legislation, any CSO that does not have a special permit to collect aid and contribution w/o prior approval has to
apply for permission to raise funds by submitting various sorts of information and documentation to the authorities. There are only 20 organizations that have a
special permit to collect aid w/o prior permission. The law authorizes the administration to refuse the application for collecting aid or to decide to which
organization to give the exceeding amount of aid/funds (if and once organization collects more than they stated in their applications) collected. Associations and
foundations may accept cash and in kind donations from persons, institutions and organizations abroad subject to notification requirements, as well as from
corporations, individuals and other sources in order to realize the purposes set out in their bylaws/charters. Use of foreign funds is not subject to approval;
however, must be notified to the relevant authorities. There is no legal barrier on accepting grants/donations from individuals, corporations and other sources.
Relevant provisions of the Turkish Commercial Code and the Foundations Law regulate the economic activities of the CSOs. Economic enterprises of CSOs are
considered as businesses by the Ministry of Finance and hence are subject to pay the same utility rates defined by Corporate Tax Law. Associations and foundations
must establish a commercial enterprise in order to carry out revenue generating activities.
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
2
The Law on Meetings and Demonstrations recognizes the right of citizens to organize an assembly and demonstration without having to obtain any prior
authorization. However, the places and duration allowed for meetings and demonstrations are restrictive while the Law provides the administration and
security forces with wide discretionary powers. The restrictions and limitations are further intensified via secondary legislation.
Pursuant to the Constitution, everyone has the right to organize meetings and demonstrations without having to obtain any prior authorization. However, regarding
laws laying down freedom of assembly in Turkey several obstacles are observed, such as: openness to various interpretation of concepts presented in legislation,
different treatments of citizen vs. non-citizen, notification requirements that de-facto becomes a permission from the administration, limited and restrictive places
and venues allowed for demonstration, administration has almost ultimate authority for intervention, the timeframe for demonstration and meetings is very
limited, making it impossible to hold open-air meetings or demonstration at night. Meetings and demonstrations must be notified to the relevant civilian authority
48 hours in advance, under all circumstances. . Right of assembly and demonstration may be restricted by law for national security, public order, and prevention of
crime, protection of public moral, public health and the rights and freedoms of others along with restrictions that may apply with respect to a designated site, route
and square. The right of the CSOs to appeal to the prohibitions introduced by the public authority is not regulated in the applicable legislation. Article 18 of the Law
provides that the postponement and prohibition of an assembly must be notified to the Assembly Organization Committee at least 24 hours in advance.
Spontaneous, unplanned and counter-assemblies are subject to authorization. The Law sets out sanctions applicable to those who prevent the assembly or
demonstration and disrupt the peace and quiet. The instances where the CSOs may exercise their freedom of assembly without prior notification is limited. There
are instances of excessive use of force by the police, including beating, during peaceful demonstrations. Media is allowed to attend the assemblies; however, there
is no regulation encouraging such attendance. It has been reported that during the Gezi Park protests the journalists were subjected to insults, preventions and
even physical violence and the pictures that they took were destroyed.
The Constitution provides for freedom of thought and opinion for all. Everyone is equal before the law without discrimination based on language, race, color, sex,
political opinion, philosophical belief, religion and sect, or any such grounds. Defamation is generally regulated under the Law on Misdemeanours. There are certain
defamation offenses that are within the scope of the Criminal Code. Anti-terror Law or the Law on Misdemeanor, which have indirect effects on associational life,
are drafted in vague and broad terminology which gives both the administration and the judiciary with extensive discretion powers over broader and negative
interpretations. Groups that criticize the status quo are marginalized either verbally or through physical intervention. Instances where the freedom of expression of
human rights activists were violated have been identified (Gezi Park Protests). Instances where journalists, human rights activists, academicians and artists have
been prosecuted and put on trial due to their opposing views have been also identified. Authority granted to the administration via Anti-terror Law or the Law on
Misdemeanor, exert pressures over human rights defenders and other organizations.
The Constitution guarantees freedom and privacy of communication for all. However, there are regulations granting public institutions the authority to restrict such
right to an extent that would be below the international standards. Pursuant to the relevant law, unless there is a duly issued judicial decision based on one or more
of the following; national security, public order, prevention of crime, protection of public health, public moral or rights and freedoms of others, the communication
cannot be prevented or its privacy cannot be violated. Internet censorship by the government is common and has increased in the last couple of years. The Law on
Regulation of the Publications Made on the Internet and Fight against the Crimes Committed via such Publications had a significant negative impact on political
freedom of expression. Preventing access to the web-sites with opposing views and certain web-sites that had a public benefit blocked the way to reaching
alternative views. Based on the data from 2013, 48.9% of the total population accessed the Internet in the last three months. Although the use of Internet has
increased considerably in the last years, the regional disparities remain. Furthermore, despite decrease in the prices and increase in the bandwidth, due to lack of
technological literacy especially among the elderly population, the use of Internet remains limited. The Law on the Internet does not define content crimes well.
This in turn is leading to arbitrary practice. There are no reported illegal threats and pressures to suppress online activists and bloggers based on the data from the
first quarters of 2011 and 2012. However, there are practices such as obstructing access to certain CSOs’ and social networks’ web-sites. “On several occasions,
high-level officials criticized the social media as a threat to society. 48 citizens were put in police custody for posting Twitter messages about the Gezi Park protests
but released later. Website bans have been increasing and are disproportionate in scope and duration. A website run by a civil initiative on freedom of internet,
“Engelli Web” (Disabled Web) provides that by 3 February 2014, 40.482 websites are banned in Turkey where 83, 9% of decisions on bans were made by the
administration: The Presidency of Telecommunication (TİB). A recent amendment made on the relevant law further increased the arbitrary limitation and blocking
of websites.
Indicator 1.1.b. Progress with the adoption and implementation of relevant legislation
This indicator will be monitored as of this baseline in accordance to the adopted recommendations and targets.
Recommendations:
BCSDN’s
Legal:
 Key: The legal framework should be revised and include definition of
civil society with variety forms of association including foundations,
associations as well as platforms, initiatives, social enterprises and
grant-making foundations
 Lift the barriers to establishing civil entities in a form other than a legal
person (association/foundation) and in other legal person forms such as
platforms, initiatives and social enterprises should be recognized
 Enable online registration for CSOs
 Key: The legal framework regulating auditing of CSOs should be
revised and the limits of public interference in internal affairs of CSOs
should be clarified. The rules of auditing and the limits of authority of
the public auditors should be clearly defined in the legislation.
Conditions that require penalties must be clearly defined under the
Penal Code, and punitive provisions in the Laws of Foundations and
Associations must be removed
 Introduce in legislation explicit provisions prohibiting public
administration from interfering with the internal matters of associations
and foundations
 Address deficiencies in the legislation with respect to the definitions
concerning audit and sanctions, so that the audit is undertaken under
equal conditions for all CSOs, the frequency, duration and the scope of
the authority granted to the auditors should be explicitly regulated
under the applicable legislation
 Revise the Law so that the administration’s arbitrary discretion is
restricted and the exercise of the freedom is provided
 Prepare special accounting standards for CSOs.
 Key: The Law and regulations for Demonstrations and Meetings should
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
Possible others’
 Monitor and seek changes in primary and secondary legislation related
to the Law on associations and foundations
 Seek for changes in legislation so it recognises possibilities for informal
actions of citizens
 Revise the primary and secondary legislation in order to expedite the
bureaucratic burdens of establishment for associations, foundations and
facilitate registration and work of foreign CSOs in Turkey
 Look for more information on provisions enabling CSOs networking
 Monitor the administration performance for challenging registration of
associations in terms of limitations based on ‘general morality, ‘Turkish
family structure’, ‘national security’, ‘public order’ concepts.
 Greater monitoring whether or not applied sanctions follow principle of
proportionality
 Lower monetary fines defined as sanctions related to associations
 Closer monitoring of state interference and equal treatment of
organisations during auditing
 Seek for liberalisation of fundraising possibilities for CSOs
 The legislative framework should be revised to facilitate corporate and
individual philanthropy
 Seek for closer monitoring of freedom of expression, especially of
human rights and watch dog organisation, is in line with EU standards
 Provide support to civil monitoring and watch dog activities for
observing right to information
19 12 2013
3
be annulled completely and a new law should be drafted that would
allow peaceful assemblies and demonstrations to be held in a
framework in line with the European Convention on Human Rights
 Review and revise the Law on Demonstrations and Meetings so that any
not violent and insulting assembly and demonstration can be carried
out without prior authorization
 Regulate legal rules to ensure freedom of expression in the applicable
legislation and the limit of interference
 Adopt a special regulation with respect to hate crimes and
discrimination
 Revise the Law on the Internet so it meets the EU standards
 Withdraw legal provisions that granting excessive authorities to the
government in connection with restriction of the right to use the
internet
 Clarify the definition of the vague phrases used in the law
Practice:
 N/A
Result: 1.2. The policies and legal environment stimulate and facilitate volunteering and employment in CSOs
Indicator: 1.2.a. Number of employees in CSO (permanent and part-time)
According to November 2013 data of the General Directorate of Foundations, only 1,831 of 4679 foundations (39,1%) have paid staff and the total number of
employees working for these foundations is 16,008. Only 645 (13.7%) out of 4679 foundations stated that they work with volunteers. The total number of
volunteers is 1,007,560. Department of Associations does not publish any data regarding the number of employees and volunteers. 57% of CSOs do not have paid
staff.


0% of CSOs stated that they do not have employees, 8% have one employee, 45% from 2-5 employees, and 45% over 6 employees
Out of total number of employees, 14.1% work full time, and 5.1% work part-time
Indicator: 1.2.b. Number of volunteers in CSOs per type of CSO / sector
2012 data of the General Directorate of Foundations, the number of volunteers working for 645 foundations in Turkey is 1.007.560. The number of members (only
real persons) is 1.155.359 for 3.456 foundations. According to 2011 data published by DoA, the number of association members are 8.852.907.






8% of CSOs in Turkey believes that up to 10% of CSs engage volunteers, 5% that 11-20% of Cos engage volunteers, 29% believes that 21-50% of CSOs engage
volunteers, 55% believes that over 50% of CSOs engage volunteers
82% CSOs stated that they have engaged, 18% stated that have not engaged volunteers in 2013, and for 3% it was not applicable
22% of the organisation had 1-5 volunteers, 54% of CSOs over 15 volunteers, and 24% between 6-15 volunteers in 2013
23% of CSOs paid pecuniary compensations to the engaged volunteers in the amount of their costs, and 49% did not pay any pecuniary costs
1% of CSOs stated that they did not conclude any volunteering contract with volunteers, while 6% stated that they have concluded with up to 3 volunteers,
2% concluded with 4-10 volunteers, and 3% with more than 10
3% of CSOs did not conclude nay other contract with volunteers
Indicator: 1.2.c. Quality of legislative framework
53% of CSOs were inclined to stating that legal solution in Turkey are not stimulating at all for volunteers, while 37% inclined stating that it is stimulating.
stimulating.
CSOs are subject to the Labor Law as is the case in other sectors. There are no special provisions with respect to CSO employees. There is no special employment
policy of the state with respect to CSOs. Although there are statistics kept by Department of Associations and the General Directorate of Foundations, it is not
known whether such information is entered into the national statistics system.
There is neither special legislation and regulation with respect to volunteering nor holistic state policy. There is no special legislation regulating the relationship
between CSOs and the volunteers. It is known that certain CSOs have developed their own volunteering policies. It is known that a CSO that works with volunteers
has been subject to a significant monetary fine because their volunteers are treated as uninsured workers. Since, there is no healthy and comprehensive formal and
informal data on volunteering in Turkey, therefore it is not possible to analyze the most popular thematic areas of volunteering work.
Recommendations:
BCSDN’s
Legal:
 Consolidate statistics with respect to CSOs on a national system.
 Develop a national definition, strategy and accompanying policies with
respect to volunteering.
Practice:
N/A
Possible others’
 Seek for introducing state incentive programmes for employment in
CSOs
 Seek for financial supports / benefits/deductions from Public
budget/taxes to promote volunteerism
 Seek for improvements in statistical system and for accuracy in
statistical data related to CSOs
 Needs identification on data collection and sharing on civil society
should be designed in a participatory manner
Result 1.3. National and/or local authorities have enabling policies and rules for grass-roots organisations* and/or civic initiatives.
Indicator: 1.3.a. Quality of the enabling environment for grass-roots organisations and/or civic initiatives
Registration and application conditions are set out in the laws. Registration is held mandatory by relevant laws and space for informal associational activities is not
recognized. Operating without a registration is sanctioned. Laws do not allow establishing CSOs online. The registration process and the timeline for registration of
associations and foundations are regulated by Law on Associations and Law on Foundations. The timeline for establishing a foundation varies depending on the
work load of the courts.
Under the applicable legislation meetings and demonstrations must be notified to the relevant civilian authority 48 hours in advance. Right of assembly and
demonstration may be restricted by law for national security, public order, and prevention of crime, protection of public moral, public health and the rights and
freedoms of others along with restrictions that may apply with respect to a designated site, route and square. Prior notification is required under all circumstances.
The Constitution guarantees freedom and privacy of communication for all. However, there are regulations granting public institutions the authority to restrict such
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020
19 12 2013
4
right to an extent that would be below the international standards. There are no reported illegal threats and pressures to suppress online activists and bloggers
based on the data from the first quarters of 2011 and 2012. However, there are practices such as obstructing access to certain CSOs’ and social networks’ web-sites.
“On several occasions, high-level officials criticized the social media as a threat to society. 48 citizens were put in police custody for posting Twitter messages about
the Gezi Park protests but released later.
Recommendations:
BCSDN’s
Possible others’
Legal:
 Seek for changes in legislation so it recognises possibilities for informal
 Lift the barriers to establishing civil entities in a form other than a legal
actions of citizens
person (association/foundation) and enable other legal person forms
 Look for stability in duration of registration of associations and
such as platforms, initiatives and social enterprises should be
foundations
recognized
 Demand for uninterrupted online access to activists and bloggers
 Enable online registration for CSOs
 Review and revise the Law on Demonstrations and Meetings so that any
assembly and demonstration that is not violent and insulting can be
carried out without prior authorization.
Practice:
N/A
Objective: 2. An enabling financial environment which supports sustainability of CSOs.
Result: 2.1. Easy-to-meet financial rules for CSO, which are proportionate to their turnover and non-commercial activities


Indicator: 2.1.a. CSOs' perception of the ease and effectiveness of financial rules and reporting requirements (disaggregated by type / size of CSO)
16% of CSOs assessed that prescribed financial rule, obligations of bookkeeping and accounting, referring to their organisations are not clear and
understandable, while for 80% were clear and understandable
For 23% 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 71% is simple to implement
Indicator: 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 regulations and penalties are against principle of proportionality. Although the applicable legislation gives the authority to prepare special accounting
regulations for associations and foundations to the relevant administrative bodies, there is no such special regulation in practice. The Law on Associations lay down
17 types of penalties and fines. A few of the critical penalties laid down in the law are: Associations administrator who do not keep the required books or records
are charged with a prison sentence of 3 months to 1 year or with a judicial fine; breaching the requirement to use Turkish language in their books, records and
official institutions of the Republic of Turkey are charged with an administrative fine of 1000 TRY. The Law on Foundations defines 3 penalties with administrative
fine of 500 TRY. The regulation on Foundations requires foundations to keep fewer books then associations. With respect to audit of CSOs that do rights-based
activities, there is a problem of unequal treatment of organizations, as the frequency, duration and the scope of audits differ from organization to organization.
The Law on Collection of Aid providing very detailed regulations and bureaucratic obligations continues to be another major obstacle for CSOs to raise funds and
maintain their sustainability. According to this legislation, any CSO that does not have a special permit to collect aid and contribution w/o prior approval has to
apply for permission to raise funds by submitting numerous information and documentation to the authorities. There are only 20 organizations that have a special
permit to collect aid w/o prior permission. The law authorizes the administration to refuse the application for collecting aid or to decide to which organization to
give the exceeding amount of aid/funds (if and once organization collects more than they stated in their applications) collected. Relevant provisions of the Turkish
Commercial Code and the Foundations Law regulates the economic activities of the CSOs; however, associations and foundations must establish a commercial
enterprise in order to carry out revenue generating activities. Associations and foundations may accept cash and in kind donations from persons, institutions and
organizations abroad subject to notification requirements; may accept donations and assistance from corporations, individuals and other sources in order to realize
the purposes set out in their bylaws/charters. Use of foreign funds is not subject to approval; however, must be notified to the relevant authorities. The legislative
framework should be revised to facilitate corporate and individual philanthropy. Establishing an endowment is mandatory for foundations. There is no
administrative difficulty in their establishment or operation, but the minimum endowment amount for foundations is 16.200 €.
Recommendations:
BCSDN’s
Legal:
 Introduce explicit provisions to the legislation prohibiting public
administration from interfering with the internal matters of associations
and foundations
 Address deficiencies in the legislation with respect to the definitions
concerning audit and sanctions, in order to ensure that the audit is
undertaken under equal conditions for all CSOs
 Explicitly regulate frequency, duration and the scope of the authority
granted to the auditors
 Change relevant tax laws
Practice:
N/A
Possible others’
 Seek for reduction of penalties, fines and level of complexity for
bookkeeping in associations and foundations.
 Seek for equal treatment of all CSOs when subject to auditing
 Seek for liberalisation of fundraising possibilities for CSOs
 Seek for simplification of possibilities for CSOs to engage in economic
activities.
 Seek for tax exemptions and deductions from public service fees
(electricity, etc.) for CSO activities
Result: 2.2. Donations are stimulated with adequate legislation and regulations
Indicator: 2.2.a. Quality and applicability/practice of the legal framework for individual and corporate giving
Tax deduction applicable to individual and corporate donations is limited with having a special status, tax-exempt status (for foundations) and public interest status
(for associations), granted by the Council of Ministers. Individuals and legal persons receive a 5% tax deduction only when they donate to tax-exempt foundations
and 0.04% when donate to associations with public benefit status. There is no tax deduction applicable to individuals who are permanent employees. Only
organizations that have tax-exempt or public interest status may benefit from donations subject to tax deduction. Online giving and crow-funding emerges as a new
trend in Turkey. However, the Law on Collection of Aid constitutes as a great obstacle before these online tools. Corporate Social Responsibility and its practices are
still in a transitional phase in Turkey. The number of companies implementing CSR projects and sponsorship activities are increasing due to growing expectations
from employees and customers.
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020
19 12 2013
5
Recommendations:
BCSDN’s
Legal:
 Increase tax incentives applicable to donations of institutions and individuals,
encourage such donations
 Promote corporate social responsibility policies and introduce certain tax
exceptions
 Introduce regulations ensuring that the donations made by permanent
employees are deducted from tax
 Expand the scope of organizations that can benefit from tax exemption
Practice:
N/A
Possible others’
 N/A
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 exemption and public benefit statuses are granted to very limited number of CSOs by Council of Ministers. This is a highly bureaucratic, political and nontransparent process and the privileges provided with the status are very limited. Furthermore, The Law on Collection of Aid with heavy limitations, bureaucratic
rules and procedures creates obstacles for financial viability of CSOs.
CSOs are exempt from profit/income tax on their ordinary fundraising activities, but tax is incurred on all economic activities. Donations and grants are tax-exempt.
Associations’ and foundations’ donation collection outside of their center and income generating activities are regulated under the Law on Collection of Aids. The
aforementioned law subject donation collection to heavy bureaucratic rules and does not promote CSOs financial sustainability. The commercial enterprises of
associations and foundations are treated as business corporation, hence are subject to pay the same utility rates defined by Corporate Tax Law. This creates heavy
burden on CSOs as they implement economic activities with the aim to create social benefit. There is no tax benefit for the income the foundations obtain from
securities. Foundations and associations may obtain rent from their real estate, dividend from contribution shares and share certificates, interest over bonds and
Turkish Lira and foreign currency investments. Pursuant to the Income Tax Law all of the foregoing revenues are subject to withholding tax to be paid by the payer
of the relevant revenue item. The legislation allows the establishment of endowments. CSOs are exempt from Inheritance and Transfer and Corporate Taxes in
connection with donations made to their endowments. Establishing an endowment is mandatory for foundations, and the minimum endowment amount for
foundations is 16.200 €. It is free to make passive investments; however, there are different tax treatments applicable.
Recommendations:
BCSDN’s
Legal:
 Key: There should be a comprehensive re-examination of tax laws for
supporting financial sustainability of civil society organizations. Turkey
should adopt tax exemption practices that are compatible with EU
countries. The Law on Collection of Aid should be amended in a way to
exclude associations and foundations for prior permission to collect aid.
 Remove existing barriers on collecting donations by foundations and
associations in the Law on Collection of Aids
 Expand the scope of tax exemptions
 Define exceptions with respect to the economic activities of CSOs
 Remove taxes applicable to CSOs’ passive investments
Possible others’
 N/A
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)
There is no general information on percentage of the total budget allocated to CSOs.
Out of the Social Support Program of the Ministry of Development, 495 (31% of the supported projects) were implemented by CSOs with total amount of
66.505.583 TL (34% of the total funds allocated). Although the available data shows that the allocated funds comply with the 25% Rule , a greater percentage of the
funds were spent by the public institutions. Project Support for Associations, by Department of Associations, Ministry of Internal Affairs, in 2012 allocated
10.072904 TL for 221 projects, and in 2013 10.569613 TL for 248 projects (or in total this ministry allocated 3.3. million €, and total number of CSOs is 98.945).CSO
Capacity Building and Financial Support Programme form the Prime Ministry- Presidency for Turks Abroad and Related Communities – total amount of allocated
funds is unknown Ministry of Culture and Tourism also accepts applications for CSO projects to support with public funds – total amount of allocated funds is
unknown.
Youth and Sports Ministry support includes also projects implemented by CSOs. In 2012 120 were supported with a budget of 10.201. 401TL. In this call for
proposals 79 project was awarded to CSOs with 730.425TL budget. In 2013, 157 projects were awarded to CSOs with 19.107.194 TL.
Indicator 2.4.b.: Quality of state funding frameworks for civil society organisations (focusing on procedural document)
There is no holistic legislation with respect to other state supports. The Central Finance and Contracts Unit (CFCU) ensures that the EU administrative procedures
pertaining to the grants, works, supplies and procurement of services adhered to in the context of EU funded programs in Turkey. Other funds are individually
distributed through relevant public institutions and ministries. EU Community Programs are implemented via Turkish National Agency . There is no regular and
continuous public funding to support the infrastructure and activities of CSOs. The Ministries may set aside a budget if authorized by the Law. Lottery proceeds are
not allocated to CSOs in Turkey. There is no special regulation with respect to CSOs’ involvement in the distribution of public funds. However, there are low-budget
funding transferred to CSOs by the Ministries, but such resources remain insufficient. Public funds are allocated to CSOs through Ministries and project partnership
mechanisms, and grant allocation or service contracts are used only rarely. The Ministries distributing the funds are also responsible from monitoring such funds.
General budget audit is carried out by the Ministry of Finance. As the public funds are not distributed in a transparent manner, it is not possible to foresee the funds
allocated to CSOs. The determination of the funding amount is at the discretion of the Ministries and may vary from year to year.
A regulation published based on a Council of Ministers decision regulates the conditions with respect to funding of associations and foundations from public
administrations’ budgets, conditions for evaluation of funding requests, the use of such funding, principles of monitoring and auditing, administrations’ authority to
issue regulations and disclosure of funding to public. Relevant ministries have issued directives and regulations in connection with allocation of funding to
associations and similar organizations from their budgets, based on the aforementioned regulation. Such ministries have also prepared application guidelines and
published the amount of support provided in the last years and the names of the projects that they have supported. Distribution of public funds is left to the
discretion of the commissions formed under the relevant Ministries. Commission decisions do not disclose the projects that apply for funding in their entirety or the
reasons for selecting the chosen project. Selection criteria are announced by the Ministries in advance. There are regulations with respect to disputes arising from
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020
19 12 2013
6
selection criteria. However, such procedures vary depending on the relevant Ministry. As there are no transparent mechanisms regulating the application for and
the process of allocation of public funds and aids to CSOs, most of the time, the Ministries do not set out the total budget, selection criteria and selection conditions
for funds and aids allocated to CSOs. There is no common practice for Ministry funds other than EU funding. Furthermore, even when the total budget is announced
by the Ministries, detailed information with respect to the allocation of the funding is not shared with public. Lack of common understanding and practice is
observed in connection with provision of financial aid to CSOs by the Ministries. Application to public funding does not create an additional cost for CSOs.
Bureaucratic conditions vary between different funds. There is no information with respect to the fairness of the tenders.
General principles regarding distribution of public funds, financial accountability, monitoring and evaluation are regulated under the Law No 5018 on Public Finance
Management and Control. The aforementioned law also regulates the sanctions applicable to violation of the procedure. There is no data regarding the way the
monitoring is carried out. Although there are special Monitoring and Evaluation Units under certain Ministries, the methods adopted and the consequences are not
known. There is no data as to whether the public organizations carry out regular evaluation on effects/impact of public funds. There is no data available with
respect to favoritism or discrimination of state authorities against CSOs based on their loyalties or political affiliation. Nevertheless, there are examples supporting
the view that there are cases of institutional discrimination.
Other than pre-determined fund mechanisms, no subsidy, grant or any other resource may be transferred to associations and foundations from the budgets of
public institutions and organizations. There are no well-defined practices in relation to the well-defined criteria and objectivism. Compared to the relations of CSOs
at central level public institutions, CSOs state that they “work more effectively and closely with municipalities as opposed to governorships. Municipalities are more
eager to offer in-kind support to CSOs, often in the form of free travel, meeting rooms, and assistance with announcing CSO activities to larger audiences”. While
the framework Law No. 5072 prohibits public support, there are examples of cooperation between CSOs and certain public institutions based on protocols.
Different practices with respect to cooperation between CSOs and local authorities exist. There is no data with respect to favouritism, but there is no data on equal
treatment of CSOs in comparison with other actors when providing state non-financial resources as well. There is no data on whether there are cases of state
authorities granting non-financial support only to CSOs, which do not criticize its work, or cases of depriving critical CSOs of support. Also, there are examples
supporting the view that there is discrimination.
Municipality Law that gives responsibility to municipalities to assist and support CSOs, limits the beneficiaries of this support to those with special status:
Associations with public benefit status and foundations with tax exempt status. In addition, in 2012, an amendment was made on article 75 of the Municipality
Law, which aimed to have possibility to further hamper cooperation between CSOs and municipalities, since it neither provides a clarification regarding the types
and nature of service activities to be supported nor provides the criteria for permission. In such a context, this revision is increasing the discretionary power of the
central government and accordingly decreasing the freedom of association. Relevant laws and regulations allow CSOs to provide services in various areas in
cooperation with the public sector. Provisions in the relevant regulations are binding with respect to the additional services to be provided by CSOs as well. The
relevant legislation and regulations do not discriminate between CSOs and other legal entities. Although there are no barriers on CSO competition, as there is no
practice of promoting such competition either, examples of service provision by the civil society are limited.
Practice for CSO involvement in service delivery is not developed. The existing legislation does not involve specific clauses related to service provision of CSOs.
There is no funding strategy that would ensure variety of services which could be provided by the CSOs, including multi-year program. There is no legal barrier to
the CSOs receiving public funding for the provision of different services. CSOs can sign long- term contract depending on the conditions of the service contract, but
there are few CSOs that provide services, i.e. contracting services to CSOs is not common practice. Since there is no data available, it is unknown if the funds
received for the social services are sufficient to cover basic costs, including proportionate institutional (overhead) costs. There is no mass data in relation if there are
delays in payments and flexibility in funding, with the aim of providing the best quality of services, but there are examples that CSOs face problems regarding
payments.
The procedures with respect to services are regulated under the legislation covers CSOs as well (Law on Public Procurement). There is no regulation specifying the
defined procedures for contracting services, which allow for transparent selection of CSO to provide services. There are no common selection criteria for selection
of service providers. In some of the cases price is the lead criterion for selection of service providers but also there are instances that service providers are selected
in accordance to their technical capacities. Provisions with respect to transparency and conflicts of interests are included in the relevant agreements. There is a
right to appeal against tender results. There is no data in relation of fairness of competition during the tendering procedure for social services. Generally, the tender
processes are carried out with sufficient capacity.
The monitoring and evaluation procedures of service provision are defined in the relevant legislation. The legislation does not include special provisions with
respect to CSOs. There is no data available if the CSOs are subject to extensive control. The working, arrangements and frequency of the monitoring process are not
known.
There is no data with respect to the quality of the process related to the evaluation of quality and effects/impact of services provided, as the results are not shared
with public.
Recommendations:
BCSDN’s
Legal:
 Key: Specific provisions with respect to service agreements of CSOs should
be included in the legislation. These provisions should recognize CSOs as
service providers and specify the defined procedures for contracting
services which allow for transparent selection of CSO to provide services
 Develop a national strategy with respect to public funding and fund
distribution and revise applicable legislation accordingly
 Prepare a broad policy document with respect to public funding, including
explicit definition of conditions
 Annually announce funds that will be distributed to CSOs
 Enable transparent and open fund distribution process by involving CSOs at
every stage
 Develop transparent criteria for distribution of public funds
 Enable the right to CSOs to object to disputes that may arise during the
selection process
 Determine national rules regarding distribution of public funds
 Expand monetary and in-kind support to the CSOs by public institutions
through defined transparent mechanisms
 Amend the Law of the Relations of Associations and Foundations with Public
Institutions (No 5072) and expend the public’s cash and in kind support to
the CSOs through defined transparent mechanisms
 Introduce special provision in the legislation with respect to service provision
by CSOs
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
Possible others’
 Seek for improvements in the availability of government funds for CSOs,
in terms of volume, predictability, and planning, and implementation
 Look for harmonised procedure applicable to all Ministries
 Work on increasing capacities and awareness of Ministries for support of
CSOs
 The information on the project support should be transparent and equal
treatment should be ensured
 Closer monitoring of disbursement, equality and impartiality when nonfinancial and in-kind support is granted to the CSOs and other actors
 Seek for varieties of possibilities for engagement of CSOs in social
services
 Seek for CSOs involvement in all stages of developing and providing
social services
 Seek for registration/licencing procedures that are not overly
burdensome for the CSOs
 Need for closer monitoring and regulation of state funding for provision
of social services
 Need for promotion of state outsourcing for provision of social services
 Monitor and work on improvements of the fairness of competition, with
conflict of interests being avoided, including clear selection criteria and
procedures
 Seek jointly developed code of conduct for independency of CSOs that
carry out sub-contracts to deliver social services
19 12 2013
7
 Explicit provisions with respect to CSOs, including provisions to avoid conflict
of interest, should be added to tender specifications.
 Define monitoring and evaluation conditions with respect to service
provision that will be shared with relevant parties ahead of the tendering
process


Closer monitoring of monitoring and evaluation practice of service
provisions
Closer monitoring of inclusion and treatment of CSOs in selection
process for service provision as well as during the implementation
Changing relations CSOs and government
Objective 3: Civil society and public institutions work in partnership through dialogue and cooperation, based on willingness, trust and mutual
acknowledgment around common interests
Result: 3.1. Public institutions recognise the importance of CSOs in improving good governance through CSOs' 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/weaker CSOs, its visibility and availability, government perception of quality of structures and
mechanisms, CSOs perception of structures and mechanisms








25% of CSOs in Turkey were consulted in the process of preparation of drafts of local strategies, 16% of local action plans, 18% of specific laws, 12% of
national strategies, 10% of national action plans, 8% of IPA programming of EU financial support, 5% of policy documents, 33% were not present in such
consultations
93% of CSOs believe that they have adequate access to information
83% of CSOs believe that they have enough time for comments
51% of CSOs believe that their attitudes/positions were not taken into consideration during the consultations, while 45% believe that their inputs were take
into consideration
17% 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, 25% of CSOs assessed that public administration provided detailed enough feedback, and
consultancy results were easily available to all parties
20% of CSOs stated that are not familiar with the structures and mechanisms between CSOs and governments, 43% state that are familiar, but do not
believe that they have actual use, 37% stated that are familiar with the structures and mechanisms and consider them useful
18% of CSOs stated that are not familiar with the structures and mechanisms for cooperation with local governments, 45% stated that are familiar, but
believe that they have no actual use, and 36% stated that are familiar with the structures and mechanisms and consider them useful
14% CSOs believe that attending the consultations, 36% that collecting of data, and 34% that providing suggestions is the most important role CSOs have for
monitoring the process of reporting on country’s progress towards EU
There is neither a government strategy for nor relevant legal or operational framework laying out Public Sector-CSO relations. To this end, CSO participation in
the decision making processes are not ensured. Furthermore, there is no specific state institution to coordinate, monitor and facilitate public funding. Therefore,
public funding is ad-hoc, inconsistent and scattered. Major criticisms on the transparency and accountability of the funds allocated by the public bodies exist.
There is no general strategy for cooperation between government and CSOs. However, the Regulation on the Procedures and Principles of Legislation Preparation
includes provisions that regulate getting the civil society’s opinion with respect to a draft prepared by the relevant ministry and the public institutions and
organizations before such draft is submitted to the Prime Ministry. In addition, there is a reference to communication and cooperation with respect to shared goals
between the public sector and the civil society in the Strategy Plans prepared by the ministries and various organizations in accordance with the Law No 5018 on
Public Finance Management and Control. Also, the strategy documents of the relevant ministries include provisions such as identifying CSOs operating in the field
of activity of the relevant ministry and being open to cooperation as stakeholders. Although there is no general binding document, certain public institutions consult
CSOs when preparing strategic plans. Since there is no strategic paper, it is hard to measure the level of cooperation between state and CSO, as well as monitoring
and evaluation process. In practice different state institutions have monitoring and evaluation procedures, which are not transparent. Department of Associations
and the General Directorate of Foundations keep the official statistical data with respect to civil society. However, those data are not taken into account in
connection with development of Public-CSO cooperation and are not transferred to national statistics system.
The Regulation on the Procedures and Principles of Legislation Preparation includes provisions setting forth that, in the event that it concerns the general public,
drafts may be brought to the general public attention by the relevant ministry through the Internet, press or broadcasting in order to inform or take the feedback
into account during the opinion evaluation process. Although there is an increase in the number of published drafts, not all drafts are being published. Publication
of the legislation prepared is at the related public institution’s discretion. Problems regarding applications made in accordance with the Right to Information Law
continue to arise in practice. Common problems that arise often include differences in application procedures; instances where no response is provided within the
time period prescribed under the law and questions left unanswered or insufficiently answered on the grounds that additional research is required to respond.
Under the penal provisions of the Right to Information Law there are sanctions applicable to civil servants and other public officials in the event that they are
negligent, at fault or wilful in the implementation of the law. Although there are certain initiatives related to sanctioning violation of the Right to Information Law,
there is no data on whether any such sanctions are applied.
CSOs involvement in decision-making process is not required /mandatory by the existing legislation. There are neither defined criteria in the legislation, nor clear
guidelines on how to ensure appropriate representation from civil society, that is base on transparent and pre-determent criteria. Practice related to inclusion of
CSOs by decision-making and advisory bodies on issues and policies relevant to CSOs, varies between public institutions and ministries, and there are no objective
mechanisms and procedures with respect to the selection processes. Some CSOs mention that depending on the relevant institution, personal relationships may
have an impact on the selection process. Although there is no supportive data, there are examples that support the view on existence of unfavourable examples
related to ability of CSOs to freely present and defend their positions in decision-making and advisory bodies. Despite the lack of supportive mechanism it is known
that there are CSOs that use alternative ways of advocacy.
There are no specific, egalitarian, continuous and accessible mechanisms that regulate CSO involvement in policy making. There is no national level institution or
mechanism with the mandate to facilitate cooperation with CSOs. Counseling services are carried out by the Department of Associations and the General
Directorate of Foundations. There is no binding provision on involvement of CSOs in the decisions taken by the competent institutions or mechanism(s). There is no
special mechanism with respect to Public-CSO relationship within the Department of Associations and the General Directorate of Foundations, which are mainly
regulatory and supervisory bodies; therefore there are no resources at all for facilitation of the CSO-government dialogue. TTherefore CSOs are not regularly
consulted and involved in processes and decision-making by the competent institutions and mechanism(s). Public institutions collaborate with CSOs only when they
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
8
want to share information, need expertise or want to make an impression on the public. Relationship between CSOs- government is regarded as one sided, since
public institutions do not respond to the demands of cooperation from CSOs at the same rate. Relationship is based on individual relations and not institutionalized.
Rules with respect to CSO involvement in decision-making are set out in the Regulation on the Procedures and Principles of Legislation Preparation. As consulting
CSOs is not mandatory under the Regulation, involvement of CSOs takes place through invitation and is usually limited with objecting to or approving the decisions.
There are no regular policies for educational programs/policies of civil servants on CSO involvement in the work of public institutions. There is no data to allow for
measurement on functionality and level of capacities of the units/offices for coordination and monitoring of public consultations. Individually, there are sporadic
cases of carrying out cooperation with civil society in certain units of the relevant ministries. Public-CSO relationships are not continuous and are left to the
discretion of the public institutions’ decision makers. The Regulation on the Procedures and Principles of Legislation Preparation states that Professional
organizations with public institution status and CSOs should provide their comments on the drafts within thirty days. Otherwise, they are considered to have issued
an affirmative opinion. There is no objective mechanism that sets out the feedback, negotiation and cooperation methods regarding the consultation process.
Central-level administrators’ perception and approach towards CSOs, to a great extent, are based on their individual experience and close encounters with
vocational/professional, socializing and hometown organisations. Reputation grade of CSOs among representatives of public institution was 6,1 of 10. Some of the
notable critiques towards CSOs was that 1) they have political motivations and not scientific/analytical, 2) their approach is not towards negotiation but
confrontation, 3) their communication and language is excluding and harsh based on prejudice, 4) they are only criticising and not proposing solutions, 5) they
advocate from away but not seek for dialogue with public institutions.
CSOs believe that majority of civil servants do not have basic knowledge of human rights and rights based thinking and hence do not take the necessary precautions
to protect the rights to secrecy and confidentiality, for instance, in cases concerning women’s and children’s rights. 1
Recommendations:
BCSDN’s
Legal:
 Key: A principle document setting forth the process of public funding for
CSOs and the framework of the civil society-public sector cooperation
should be prepared in a participatory manner.
 Prepare, in a participatory manner, a principle document setting forth the
framework of the civil society-public cooperation
 Prepare the strategy document including mechanisms that meet
participatory, transparent and egalitarian criteria that would allow CSOs to
provide their opinions
 Make legislation more binding in order to be able to solve the problems
faced during the implementation of the Right to Information Law
 Enable that all draft legislation and policy documents prepared by the public
institutions are accessible by all, and develop mechanisms for the CSOs to
provide their opinions should be developed, including sufficient time to
respond
 Add provisions with respect to CSOs involvement in the decision-making
process to the legislation
 Form public institutions that would directly manage the relationship with
civil society
 Add provisions to the legislation ensuring civil society participation
Possible others’
 Greater monitoring of implementation of the Right to Information Law,
and seek removal of barriers and/or wrong application concerning the
Law.
 Lay down mechanisms for inclusion of CSOs in decision-making and
advisory bodies, where CSOs are able to freely express their position
w/o sanctioning, and ensuring clear and transparent selection process
with pre-determent criteria.
 Once public institution for cooperation with CSOs is established, it will
be possible to monitor patterns and level of CSOs involvement of CSOs
in government decision-making processes
 Adopt standards on involvement of CSOs in the policy and decisionmaking processes in line with regulatory practices prescribing minimum
requirements, which every policy-making process needs to fulfil
 Promote importance of development of and cooperation between
government and CS
CSOs Capacities
Objective 4.: Capable, transparent and accountable CSOs
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.)
31% of CSOs believe that decision making in CSOs in their country is in compliance with prescribed rules and laws of the organisation, 44% believe that
decisions are made by some individual or top management, 25% that decisions are made with prescribed rules including consultations with the employees
and volunteers
27% of CSOs stated that decision making in their organisation is in compliance with prescribed rules and laws of the organisation, 42% stated that decisions
are made by some individual or top management, 31% that decisions are made with prescribed rules including consultations with the employees and
volunteers
71% 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
97% CSOs inform members of their organisation about the results of their work, 93% inform founders of their organisation, 95% inform management
board, 93% inform beneficiaries of their organisation, 83% inform general public, 96% general assembly, and 92% inform supervisory board
Result 4.2.: CSOs are able to communicate the results of their activities to the public




1
Indicator 4.2.a.: External perception of importance and impact of CSOs activities.
56.3% of surveyed trust to NGOs in their country, general population trust the most to the President of the state Presidency 70.1% of surveyed, and the
least to media 21.0% of surveyed
38.6% of general population do not trust to NGOs, 77.1% of surveyed do not trust to media, and 66.8% of surveyed do not trust to political parties
53.3% of the general population believes that NGOs support dealing with problems in their country, police supports the most in dealing with problems
64.2%, and media support the least 31.3%
57% 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 42% of
CSOs believe it is due insufficient (or inadequate) CSO activities
ibid 1, pg 30
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
9



Almost all topics and issues listed in the survey were assessed relatively low in the range of 60%, by over 78% of surveyed believe that education is the most
important topic, only 40% of surveyed expressed interest in fighting against corruption as the least important topic2
69% of surveyed believe that CSOs in their country are active in fighting problems in culture and art area, 65% believe in the area of education, and 51% in
ecology
67% of surveyed believe that CSOs in their country are not active in fighting problems in rural development area, 65% believe in the area of fighting against
drug abuse, and 59% in employment
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
80% CSOs stated that they publish their statute on their web page, 5% stated that the statute is accessible to the public, 15% stated that the statute is not
accessible to the public
27% (the most) of CSOs stated that their statute is accessible to public within the project
62% of CSOs stated that they have a rulebook and it available on their web page, 4% stated that they have a rulebook, 11% stated that have a rulebook, but
it is not accessible to the public, and 23% stated that they do not have a rulebook
27% of CSOs believe that up to 10% of CSOs in Turkey publish organisational Annual Program Statement of Work, 37% believe that only 11-30% of CSOs do
so, 27% believe that 31%-70% organisation publish APS of Work, and 8% believe that more than 70% do so
61% of CSOs stated that they publish their APS of Work on their web page, and 31% stated that they do not have APS of Work accessible to public
32% of CSOs belie that up to 10% of CSOs publish organisational financial reports, 37% of CSOs believe that 11%-30% publish financial report, 20% believe
that from 31-70% and 9% of CSOs believe that more than 70% of CSO publish financial reports
49% of CSOs stated that they have financial reports accessible to public and published on the web page, while 43% stated they do not have financial reports
available to the public
39% of CSOs believe that up to 10% of CSOs publish audited reports, and 8% believe that more than 70% publish audited reports
47% of CSOs stated that they have audited financial reports accessible to the public by publishing it on their web page, 46% 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
26% of CSOs evaluate their projects pro forma, while 74% evaluate projects with the purpose of establishing efficiency and drawing a lesson for further
projects
31% of CSOs use external evaluation for realisation of their projects
23% 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
72% of CSOs have established system for assessment for implementation of organisation’s strategic plan
Objective 5.: Effective CSOs
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
75% of CSOs have developed strategic plan, 15% do not have a strategic plan
79% use internal evaluation when employing staff in their organisation
27% of CSOs neither have established internal system for assessment of efficiency of employees in their organisation, nor 28% of CSOs have established
system for implementation of strategic plan
54% of CSOs stated that they have a human resources development plan aimed at attacking and keeping talented associates, while 27% stated that they are
developing such plan
71% of CSO stated that they manage to keep talented associates, and 75% 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
68% of CSOs active in public advocacy, mainly/frequently uses research for their advocacy actions, while 32% of them mainly/very rarely use research
90% of CSOs believe that they have enough information at their disposal
9% of CSOs use official data of national statistical offices, ministries, 88% many sources of information
Result 5.3.: CSOs regularly network within and outside country borders and make use of coalition-building for increased impact in campaigning and advocacy





2
Indicator 5.3.a: Share of CSOs taking part in local, national, regional and international networks
0% of CSOs indicated that they do not belong to any international network, 17% stated that belong to one international network, 10% stated that they
belong to 2 international networks, 15% belong to more than 3 international networks
0% of CSOs are not active in any of international networks, 15% are active in one international network, 9% are active in 2 international networks, and 15%
are active in more than 3 international networks
0% of CSOs indicated that they do not belong to any national network, 16% stated that belong to one national network, 13% stated that they belong to 2
national networks, 27% belong to more than 3 national networks
0% of CSOs are not active in any of national networks, 17% are active in one national network, 13% are active in 2 national networks, and 25% are active in
more than 3 national networks
0% of CSOs indicated that they do not belong to any local network, 12% stated that belong to one local network, 8% stated that they belong to 2 local
networks, 27% belong to more than 3 local networks
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
10



0% of CSOs are not active in any of local networks, 13% are active in one local network, 7% are active in 2 local networks, and 26% are active in more than 3
local networks
54% of CSOs do not find CSO networks efficient, while 46% find them efficient
28% of CSO stated that their contributed in terms of the exchange of experience/knowledge from being member of a network, 13% gained in terms of joint
projects, 18% gained in mutual support and assistance
Objective 6.:Financially sustainable CSOs
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
48% of CSOs believe that CSOs in Turkey mainly adopt to donors’ priorities and collect funds also for other activities not in line with their organisational
strategic plan, while 52% of CSOs believe that CSOs in Turkey mainly stich with their strategic plan and collect funds for activities in line with their strategic
plan
56% of CSOs stated that they mainly stick t0 their strategic plans and collects fund for activities in line with its strategic plan, while 45% 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
0% of CSOs stated that they did not have any donors in the past year, 4% had one donor, 7% had between 2-3 donors, 3% had 4-5 donors, and 24% over 6
donors
66% of CSOs had income from membership fees, 44% had from citizens, 24% form local self-government and/or regional administration, 17% from other
foreign private or state resources, 29% form the EU funds, 23% form governments/ministries/state administration bodies, 19% from private companies
operating in the country, 11% from public companies
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
11
Objectives
Results
Indicator
Baseline findings
Scoring
Recommendations
Conducive environment
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
Freedom of establishment and participation in informal/ formal
22/100
Freedom of establishment and participation in informal/ formal
organisations online/offline of individuals/ organisations
organisations online/offline of individuals/ organisations
organisations online/ offline of individuals/ organisations
Legislation: (10)
Legislation:
Legislation (BCSDN):
1) There is a legal framework according to which any person can
 There is a legal framework for establishing associations (including
 The barriers to establishing civil entities in a form other than a
establish associations, foundations and other types of non-profit,
umbrella organisations as federations and confederations) and
legal person (association/foundation) should be lifted and other
non-governmental entities (e.g., non-profit company) for any
foundations. There’s also a legislation that regulates establishment
legal person forms such as platforms, initiatives and social
purpose. (1.1.1.L1)
enterprises should be recognized.
of “cooperatives” that can be called community-based enterprises3.
2) The legal framework allows both individual and legal persons to
 Online registration for CSOs should be enabled.
There is no legal framework for establishing other types of
exercise this right without discrimination (age, nationality, legal
Legislation (possible other):
organizations such as platforms, networks, non-profit companies.
capacity, gender etc). (1.1.1.L2)
 Monitor and seek changes in primary and secondary
 ‘Freedom of Association legislation is broadly in line with EU
3) Registration is not mandatory, and in cases when organizations
legislation related to the Law on associations and
standards’, EU Progress Report 2012, but problems still continue
decide to register, the registration rules are clearly prescribed and
foundations
with primary, and more importantly in secondary legislation by
allow for easy, timely and inexpensive registration and appeal
 Seek for legislation revision so that any ambiguities is
limiting interpretation of primary legislation and thus limiting
process (1.1.1.L3)
annulled
freedom of association. The Law on Association and Foundation and
4) The law allows for networking among organizations in the countries
respective regulations, rather then laying down freedom of
 Seek for changes in legislation so it recognises possibilities
and abroad without prior notification. (1.1.1.L4)
association and rights as a framework, provide very detailed
for informal actions of citizens
Practice (10):
regulations that provides limitations, restrictions, penalties, fines,
 Revise the primary and secondary legislation in order to
1) Every individual or legal entity in practice can form associations,
and bureaucratic procedures. 4
expedite the bureaucratic burdens of establishment for
foundations or other non-profit, non-governmental organizations
 Concepts such as ‘general morality, ‘Turkish family structure’,
associations, foundations and facilitate registration &
offline or online. (1.1.1.P1)
‘national security’, ‘public order’ which are prevalent in the legal
work of foreign CSOs in Turkey
2) Individuals and legal entities are not sanctioned for not-registering
framework do not have concrete definition thus are open for
their organizations. (1.1.1.P2)
interpretation of state officials and the judiciary.5
3) Registration is truly accessible within the legally prescribed
 Individuals and legal persons with legal capacity have the right to
deadlines; authorities decide on cases in non-subjective and
establish an association without having to obtain any prior approval.
apolitical manner. (1.1.1.P3)
However, there are certain restrictions in special laws applicable to
4) Individuals and CSOs can form and participate in networks and
Practice (BCSDN):
the members of the Turkish Armed Forces and police force and the
coalitions, within and outside their home countries. (1.1.1.P4)
N/A
officers in public institutions and organizations that have civil
Practice (possible other):
servant status. The law defines the freedom of children under the
age of 18 to establish an association pursuant to certain special
 Look for more information on provisions enabling CSOs
regulations. There are restrictions applicable to people who are not
networking
Turkish citizens.
 Look for stability in duration of registration of associations
 Registration and application conditions are set out in the laws.
and foundations
Registration is required to operate as a CSO. To establish an
 Monitor the administration performance for challenging
association, the administration requests 7 founding members.
registration of associations in terms of limitations based
Within 6 months of operation, the association should reach to at
on ‘general morality, ‘Turkish family structure’, ‘national
least 16 members to be able to fulfil the required number of
security’, ‘public order’ concepts.
Freedom of CSOs operations in relation to unwarranted state
members in the two legally required boards of the association.
interference in CSOs’ internal governance and activities
Minimum number of founding members is not sought for
Legislation (15):
foundations. Foundations need to own assets of a total of minimum
1) The legal framework provides guarantees against state interference
50.000 TRY (approximately 17,500 EUR) to be able to be founded.
in internal matters of associations, foundations and other types of
 Registration is held mandatory by relevant laws and space for
non-profit entities. (1.1.2.L1)
informal associational activities is not recognized.
2) The state provides protection from interference by third parties.
 The legal framework is highly restrictive towards foreign CSOs. The
(1.1.2.L2)
3
UN FAO, “An overview of cooperatives in Turkey”: http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/ar427e/ar427e.pdf “(cooperatives are organizations of varying partners and varying capital that are established by individuals or public institutions and special
administrations, municipalities, villages, communities and associations with the aim of protecting certain economic interests and particularly professional and income needs of partners and providing income through mutual aid, solidarity and authorization”.
4
5
Turkey Needs Assessment Report, TACSO, December 2013, pg. 5
Ibid 1, pg 5.
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
12
3) 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
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
Ministry of Internal Affairs, in consultation with the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, is authorized to grant a permit for a foreign CSO to
establish a branch or a representation in Turkey.
 Although platforms are also recognized by the Law On Associations,
platforms cannot be registered as separate legal entities.6
 It is not allowed to establish foundations supporting a specific race
or community member (Article 101, Civil Law), Freedom of
association in the form of foundations to support an ethnic or
religious group and/or identity is restricted. It is not allowed to
establish neither association nor foundation, which is against
‘morality’, where ‘morality’ is very vague term.
 The legal framework allows for freedom of international operation
for associations and foundations.
 According to data provided by the Department of Associations,
there are approximately 98.990 associations active in Turkey as of
January 20147 whereas the number of New Foundations provided
by the General Directorate of Foundations is 4.766.
Practice
 Laws do not allow establishing CSOs online.
 Registration is required for operating as a CSO. Operating without a
registration is sanctioned.
 The registration process and the timeline for registration of
associations and foundations are regulated by Law on Associations
and Law on Foundations. The timeline for establishing a foundation
varies depending on the work load of the courts.
 The necessary information and documentation that is required to
found an association are quite comprehensive and for many groups
are difficult to comply with. One such requirement is the address of
the association to be provided at the founding stage. The first
obstacle lies with a provision which requires the approval of all flat
proprietors of the building in which the headquarters is situated at
if the building is a residential building. In addition, the DoA
publicized a legal opinion on its website stating that an association
cannot share the same address/premises with another legal or
private entity.8
 Foreign foundations/associations are required to get permission for
their operations and cooperation in Turkey.The total number of
foreign CSOs that received the permit to found associations,
branches or representations in Turkey is only 102. While only four
CSOs were given permission in 2012, the number has increased to
27 in 20139.
 There are no barriers on CSOs’ international communication and
cooperation; however, regional disparities exist with respect to the
frequency of such activities.
 Concepts present in the Law on Assoications and Foundations
create inconsistent and arbitrary interpretation and implementation
between different state institutions and even within the same
organization.10
 Some state authorities continue to request court cases for closure
LGBTI CSOs, basing their legal thesis on the ‘general morality’.11
6
Ibid 1 pg 12.
http://www.dernekler.gov.tr/ January 24,2014.
8 Dernek Adresleri (29/04/2013) at http://www.dernekler.gov.tr/tr/Mevzuat/hukuki-gorusler.aspx
9 http://www.dernekler.gov.tr/media/templates/dernekler/images/folder/6IzinVerilenlerListesi.xls
10 Ibid 1
11 Ibid 1, pg 6
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020
19 12 2013
7
13
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:
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
12
13
Freedom of CSOs operations in relation to unwarranted state
interference in CSOs’ internal governance and activities
Legislation
 Foundations and Associations Laws provides for audit of
associations and foundations to determine whether their activities
are in line with the purposes set out in their bylaws.
 There is no special provision in respect of state protection
interference by the third party
 There is no holistic approach or implementation when it comes to
the financial reporting and accounting rules and their sensitivity and
proportionality to the nature and size of the CSOs . Although the
applicable legislation gives the authority to prepare special
accounting regulations for associations and foundations to the
relevant administrative bodies, there is no such special regulation in
practice.
 Sanctions for breaching legal requirements are regulated under the
applicable legislation.
 There are specific provisions in the law with respect to liquidation
and dissolution procedures that regulate automatic dissolution,
temporary suspension of activities and termination of associations
and foundations.
 The framework as laid down in the legal framework regarding the
inspections and audit to be conducted by state authorities is quite
vague.12
Practice:
 There are examples of state interference in internal matters of
associations/foundations in practice.
 With respect to audit of CSOs that do rights-based activities, there is
a problem of unequal treatment of organizations, as the frequency,
duration and the scope of audits differ from organization to
organization.
 With respect to audit and sanctions, regional disparities,
disproportionate administrative and judicial practices are observed.
Due to lack of defined terms in the applicable legislation certain
CSOs are facing sanctions.
 Despite the existence of Guide on Inspections of Duties and
Operations of Associations published by DoA that aims to establish
a standardized frame for the role and duties of the auditors, civil
society monitoring reports reveal that inconsistent implementation
continues.13
Freedom of CSOs in seeking and securing financial resources from
various domestic and foreign sources to support CSOs’ activities
Legislation:
 As discussed in the EC Turkey Progress Report 2013, “CSOs’ financial
environment is characterised by insufficient tax and other incentives
for private donations and sponsorship, making many of them
dependent on public (often international) project grants”. 14
 The Law on Collection of Aid providing very detailed regulations and
bureaucratic obligations continues to be another major obstacle for
Ibid 1, pg 6.
Ibid 1 pg 6
14
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2013/package/tr_rapport_2013.pdf
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020
19 12 2013
14
Freedom of CSOs operations in relation to unwarranted state
interference in CSOs’ internal governance and activities
Legislation (BCSDN):
 Explicit provisions prohibiting public administration from
interfering with the internal matters of associations and
foundations should be introduced to the legislation.
 The deficiencies in the legislation with respect to the definitions
concerning audit and sanctions should be addressed. In order to
ensure that the audit is undertaken under equal conditions for all
CSOs, the frequency, duration and the scope of the authority
granted to the auditors should be explicitly regulated under the
applicable legislation.
 Special accounting standards should be prepared for CSOs.
Legislation (possible other):
 Greater monitoring whether or not applied sanctions
follow principle of proportionality.
 Introduce decreases in amounts of monetary fines defined
as sanctions related to associations.
Practice:
N/A
Practice (possible other):
Greater/establish monitoring in:
 Closer monitoring of state interference and equal
treatment of organisations during auditing
Freedom of CSOs in seeking and securing financial resources from
various domestic and foreign sources to support CSOs’ activities
Legislation (BCSDN):
N/A
Legislation (possible other):
 Seek for liberalisation of fundraising possibilities for CSOs.
 The legislative framework should be revised to facilitate
corporate and individual philanthropy.
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)
Practice
1) 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)
2) The Internet is widely accessible and affordable(1.2.3.P2)
3) 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)
CSOs to raise funds and maintain their sustainability. According to
this legislation, any CSO that does not have a special permit to
collect aid and contribution w/o prior approval has to apply for
permission to raise funds by submitting various sorts of information
and documentation to the authorities. There are only 20
organizations that have a special permit to collect aid w/o prior
permission. The law authorizes the administration to refuse the
application for collecting aid or to decide to which organization to
give the exceeding amount of aid/funds (if and once organization
collects more than they stated in their applications) collected.15
 Relevant provisions of the Turkish Commercial Code and the
Foundations Law regulates the economic activities of the CSOs.
 CSOs are exempt from profit/income tax on their ordinary
fundraising activities, although tax is incurred on all economic
activities. Economic enterprises of CSOs are considered as
businesses by the Ministry of Finance and hence are subject to pay
the same utility rates defined by Corporate Tax Law.
 In Turkey, the 5% tax deduction for the donations of legal entities is
only applicable for foundations with tax exemption status and
associations with public benefit status.16
 Associations and foundations may accept cash and in kind donations
from persons, institutions and organizations abroad subject to
notification requirements.
 Associations and foundations may accept donations and assistance
from corporations, individuals and other sources in order to realize
the purposes set out in their bylaws/charters.
Practice:
 Associations and foundations must establish a commercial
enterprise in order to carry out revenue generating activities.
 Use of foreign funds is not subject to approval; however, must be
notified to the relevant authorities.
 There is no legal barrier on accepting grants/donations from
individuals, corporations and other sources.
Freedom of peaceful assembly of CSOs’ representatives, individuals or
CSOs
Legislation:
 Pursuant to the Constitution, everyone has the right to organize
meetings and demonstrations without having to obtain any prior
authorization.
 Regarding laws laying down freedom of assembly in Turkey several
obstacles are observed. There are several articles in the Law on
meetings and Demonstration, Law on Police Powers and Duties and
relevant regulations which are not in line with ECHR17:
o Vague provisions like ‘national Security or ‘public moral’ are
open for interpretation of authorities
o Makes interpretation between citizens of Republic of Turkey
and non-citizens by making meetings and demonstrations to
be held by latter subject to permission of the Ministry of
Interior Affairs
o Notification requirements is implemented in a manner that it
15
Ibid 1 pg 7
Bireysel ve Kurumsal Bağışçılar için Yasal ve Vergisel Düzenlemeler Rehberi http://www.tusev.org.tr/usrfiles/files/vergiselkonularrehberi_web_29_08_13.pdf
17 European Convention on Human Rights
16
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
15
Practice (BCSDN):
N/A
Practice (possible other):
N/A
Freedom of peaceful assembly of CSOs’ representatives,
individuals or CSOs
Legislation (BCSDN):
 The Law on Demonstrations and Meetings should be reviewed
and revised so that any assembly and demonstration that is not
violent and insulting can be carried out without prior
authorization.
Legislation (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN’s
Practice:
 The actual problems in connection with organizing meetings and
demonstrations arise in practice. The Law should be significantly
revised, the administration’s arbitrary discretion should be
de-facto becomes a permission from the administration
o Places and venues allowed for demonstration are very limited
and restrictive and the authority to designate or approve lies
with the highest state authority of the district
o The law provides the administration with almost ultimate
authority for intervention
o The timeframe for demonstration and meetings is very limited,
making it impossible to hold open-air meetings or
demonstration at night.18
 Under the applicable legislation meetings and demonstrations must
be notified to the relevant civilian authority 48 hours in advance.
Right of assembly and demonstration may be restricted by law for
national security, public order, and prevention of crime, protection
of public moral, public health and the rights and freedoms of others
along with restrictions that may apply with respect to a designated
site, route and square.
 Prior notification is required under all circumstances.
 The right of the CSOs to appeal to the prohibitions introduced by
the public authority is not regulated in the applicable legislation.
Practice:
 As set out in the 2013 EU Progress Report “Some civil society
activities are regulated by restrictive primary and secondary
legislation, e.g. limiting the right to publish press statements and
requiring advance notification of demonstrations, which are often
confined to a limited number of designated sites and dates.”
 Article 18 of the Law provides that the postponement and
prohibition of an assembly must be notified to the Assembly
Organization Committee at least 24 hours in advance.
 Spontaneous, unplanned and counter-assemblies are subject to
authorization. The Law sets out sanctions applicable to those who
prevent the assembly or demonstration and disrupt the peace and
quiet.
 The instances where the CSOs may exercise their freedom of
assembly without prior notification is limited.
 There are instances of excessive use of force by the police, including
beating, during peaceful demonstrations. According to the 2013 EU
Progress Report, “Many court cases were launched against human
rights defenders and civil society representatives.”
 Media is allowed to attend the assemblies; however, there is no
regulation encouraging such attendance. It has been reported that
during the Gezi Park protests the journalists were subjected to
insults, preventions and even physical violence and the pictures that
they took were destroyed.
Freedom of expression of individuals or through their organisations
Legislation:
 The Constitution provides for freedom of thought and opinion for
all.
 Everyone is equal before the law without discrimination based on
language, race, color, sex, political opinion, philosophical belief,
religion and sect, or any such grounds. The principle of justice and
equality before the law is protected under various provisions of the
18
Ibid 1 pg 7
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
16
restricted and the exercise of the freedom should be provided.
Practice (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN’s
Turkish Criminal Code, genocide is prohibited, discrimination,
incitement of the public to hatred and enmity or defamation is
considered a crime.
 Defamation is generally regulated under the Law on
Misdemeanours. There are certain defamation offenses that are
within the scope of the Criminal Code.
 Anti-terror Law or the Law on Misdemeanor, which have indirect
effects on associational life, are drafted in vague and broad
terminology which gives both the administration and the judiciary
with extensive discretion powers over broader and negative
interpretations.19
Practice:
 Meetings and demonstrations where opinions that criticize the
government’s policies and practices are among various activities of
rights-based organizations. Groups that criticize the status quo are
marginalized either verbally or through physical intervention
 Instances where the freedom of expression of human rights activists
were violated identified (Amnesty International Annual Report on
Turkey 2013). According to Gezi Park Protests report prepared by
Amnesty International “…The smashing of Gezi Park protest
movement has involved a string of human rights violations include:
the wholesale denial of the right to peaceful assembly and
violations of the rights to life, liberty and the freedom from torture
and other ill-treatment.”
 There are criminal investigations against civil society due to their
non-violent opposing views, critical statements directed at state
policies and especially opposing views concerning Kurdish rights and
policies, restricting the civil society’s freedom of expression.
 Instances where journalists, human rights activists, academicians
and artists have been prosecuted and put on trial due to their
opposing views have been identified.
 Authority granted to the administration via Anti-terror Law or the
Law on Misdemeanor, exert pressures over human rights defenders
and other organizations.20
Rights of CSOs representatives, individuals and through their
organisations to safely receive and impart information through any
media
Legislation:
 The Constitution guarantees freedom and privacy of communication
for all. However, there are regulations granting public institutions
the authority to restrict such right to an extent that would be below
the international standards.
 Pursuant to the relevant law, unless there is a duly issued judicial
decision based on one or more of the following; national security,
public order, prevention of crime, protection of public health, public
moral or rights and freedoms of others, the communication cannot
be prevented or its privacy cannot be violated.
Practice:
 Internet censorship by the government is common and has
increased in the last couple of years. The Law on Regulation of the
Publications Made on the Internet and Fight against the Crimes
19
20
ibid 1 pg 7
Ibid 1 pg 7
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
17
Freedom of expression of individuals or through their
organisations
Legislation (BCDN):
 Legal rules to ensure freedom of expression must be explicitly
regulated in the applicable legislation and the limit of
interference must be regulated.
 A special regulation must be adopted with respect to hate
crimes.
 A special regulaiton must be adopted with respect to
discrimination.
Legislation (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN’s
Practice (BCSDN):
N/A
Practice (possible other):
 Seek for closer monitoring of freedom of expression,
especially of human rights and watch dog organisation, is
in line with EU standards
Rights of CSOs representatives, individuals and through their
organisations to safely receive and impart information through




Committed via such Publications (The Law on the Internet) had a
significant negative impact on political freedom of expression.
Preventing access to the web-sites with opposing views and certain
web-sites that had a public benefit blocked the way to reaching
alternative views.
Based on the data from 2013, 48.9% of the total population
accessed the internet in the last three months. Although the use of
internet has increased considerably in the last years, the regional
disparities remain. Furthermore, despite decrease in the prices and
increase in the bandwidth, due to lack of technological literacy
especially among the elderly population, the use of internet remains
limited.
The Law on the Internet does not define content crimes well. This in
turn is leading to arbitrary practice.
There are no reported illegal threats and pressures to suppress
online activists and bloggers based on the data from the first
quarters of 2011 and 2012. However, there are practices such as
obstructing access to certain CSOs’ and social networks’ web-sites.
“On several occasions, high-level officials criticized the social media
as a threat to society. 48 citizens were put in police custody for
posting Twitter messages about the Gezi Park protests but released
later. (The report of Ombudsman on Gezi Park Protests, 2013).
Website bans have been increasing and are disproportionate in
scope and duration. A website run by a civil initiative on freedom of
internet, “Engelli Web” (Disabled Web) provides that by 3 February
2014, 40.482 websites are banned in Turkey21 where 83, 9% of
decisions on bans were made by the administration: The
Presidency of Telecommunication (TİB). A recent amendment made
on the relevant law further increased the arbitrary limitation and
blocking of websites.
any media
Legislation (BCSDN):
 Regulations granting excessive authorities to the government in
connection with restriction of the right to use the internet should
be limited in order to provide freedom of expression
 The definition of the vague phrases used in the law should be
clarified
Legislation (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN’s
Practice (BCSDN):
 The Law on the Internet needs to be revised in line with the EU
standards
Practice (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN’s
Civil monitoring and wacthdog activities for observing right to
information should be supported.
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)
 According to November 2013 data of the General Directorate of
Foundations, only 1,831 of 4679 foundations (39,1%) have paid staff
and the total number of employees working for these foundations is
16,008.
 Only 645 (13.7%) out of 4679 foundations stated that they work
with volunteers. The total number of volunteers is 1,007,560.
 Department of Associations does not publish any data regarding the
number of employees and volunteers.
 57% of CSOs do not have paid staff22
 0% of CSOs stated that they do not have employees, 8% have one
employee, 45% from 2-5 employees, and 45% over 6 employees
 Out of total number of employees, 14.1% work full time, and 5.1%
work part-time23
21
22
http://engelliweb.com/ and http://engelliweb.com/istatistikler/
ibid 1 pg 51
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
18
Legislation (BCSDN):
N/A
Legislation (possible other):
N/A
Practice (BCSDN):
N/A
Practice (possible other):
N/A
1.2.b. Number of volunteers in CSOs per type of CSO / sector
 2012 data of the General Directorate of Foundations, the number of
volunteers working for 645 foundations in Turkey is 1.007.560
 The number of members (only real persons) is 1.155.359 for 3.456
foundations.24 According to 2011 data published by DoA, the
number of association members are 8.852.907.25
 8% of CSOs in Turkey believes that up to 10% of CSs engage
volunteers, 5% that 11-20% of Cos engage volunteers, 29% believes
that 21-50% of CSOs engage volunteers, 55% believes that over 50%
of CSOs engage volunteers
 82% CSOs stated that they have engaged, 18% stated that have not
engaged volunteers in 2013, and for 3% it was not applicable
 22% of the organisation had 1-5 volunteers, 54% of CSOs over 15
volunteers, and 24% between 6-15 volunteers in 2013
 23% of CSOs paid pecuniary compensations to the engaged
volunteers in the amount of their costs, and 49% did not pay any
pecuniary costs
 1% of CSOs stated that they did not conclude any volunteering
contract with volunteers, while 6% stated that they have concluded
with up to 3 volunteers, 2% concluded with 4-10 volunteers, and 3%
with more than 10
 3% of CSOs did not conclude nay other contract with volunteers 26
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
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:
4) 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)
Equality of treatment of CSOs’ employees in comparison with other
employees
Legislation:
 CSOs are subject to the Labour Law as is the case in other sectors.
There are no special provisions with respect to CSO employees.
Practice:
 There is no special employment policy of the state with respect to
CSOs.
 Although there are statistics kept by Department of Associations
and the General Directorate of Foundations, it is not known
whether such information is entered into the national statistics
system.
Enabling volunteering policies and laws
Legislation:
 There is no special legislation and regulation with respect to
volunteering.
23
Equality of treatment of CSOs’ employees in comparison with
other employees
Legislation (BCSDN):
 The statistics with respect to CSOs should be consolidated on a
national system.
Legislation (possible other):
 Seek for introducing state incentive programmes for
employment in CSOs
 Seek for financial supports / benefits/deductions from
Public budget/taxes to promote volunteerism
Practice (BCSDN):
N/A
Practice (possible other):
 Seek for improvements in statistical system and for
accuracy in statistical data related to CSOs
 Needs on data collection and sharing on civil society
should be designed in a participatory manner
Enabling volunteering policies and laws
Legislation (BCSDN)
 A national definition and strategy should be developed with
respect to volunteering.
Baseline survey, Ipsos, April 2014
The given number only includes New Foundations (established after Republic) http://www.vgm.gov.tr/db/dosyalar/webicerik205.pdf
25 Due to lack of information on the number of volunteers, authors used the number of members considering that associations are member-based organizations. However, it is important to note that given numbers do not entail any information about the level of participation by the
members. Furthermore, in Turkey it is common to see cases where individuals are members of more than one association.
26 Ibid 23
24
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
19
 The Ministry of Education promotes classes regarding social
responsibility in secondary education institutions. Works regarding
volunteering are carried out in community centers. Universities are
offering classes on social responsibility. However, there is no holistic
state policy.
 There is no special legislation regulating the relationship between
CSOs and the volunteers. It is known that certain CSOs have
developed their own volunteering policies.
Practice:
 There is no specific legislation or a policy document related to
volunteering.
 There is no specific regulation.
 It is known that a CSO that works with volunteers has been subject
to a significant monetary fine because their volunteers are treated
as uninsured workers.
 There is no healthy and comprehensive formal and informal data on
volunteering in Turkey, therefore it is not possible to analyze the
most popular thematic areas of volunteering work 27
 Lack of legal framework leads to incompliance accusations towards
CSOs regarding the Labor Law: In 2013, the Social Security
Institution fined the Association for Supporting Contemporary Life an organization with public benefit status- arguing that the
volunteers of the organization are employed as “uninsured
employees.”28

1.3. National and/or local authorities have enabling policies and rules for grass-roots organisations* and/or civic initiatives.
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.
 Volunteering policies should be developed within the
framework of the abovementioned national definition and
strategy.
Legislation (possible other):
Apart from the BCSDN’s
 Seek for passing the law for volunteering
Practice (BCSDN):
N/A
Practice (possible other):
 Ensure that potential Law on volunteering also regulates
working relations with the volunteers.
*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,
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
27
Registration, informal vs. formal
Legislation:
 Registration and application conditions are set out in the laws.
Registration is required to operate as a CSO.
 Laws do not allow establishing CSOs online
 Registration is required for operating as a CSO. Operating without a
registration is sanctioned.
 Registration is held mandatory by relevant laws and space for
informal associational activities is not recognized.29
Practice:
 Registration is required for operating as a CSO. Operating without a
registration is sanctioned.
 The registration process and the timeline for registration of
associations and foundations are regulated by Law on Associations
and Law on Foundations. The timeline for establishing a foundation
varies depending on the work load of the courts.
Spontaneity
Ibid 1 pg17
28
http://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/turkiye/18395/CYDD_ye_bir_kiskac_da_SGK_dan_.html
29
Ibid 1
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
20
Registration, informal vs. formal
Legislation (BCSDN):
 The barriers to establishing civil entities in a form other than a
legal person (association/foundation) should be lifted and other
legal person forms such as platforms, initiatives and social
enterprises should be recognized.
 Online registration for CSOs should be enabled.
Legislation (possible other):
 Seek for changes in legislation so it recognises possibilities
for informal actions of citizens
Practice (BCSDN):
N/A
Practice (possible other):
 Look for stability in duration of registration of associations
and foundations
Spontaneity
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)
2. An enabling financial
environment which
supports sustainability
of CSOs.
Legislation:
 Under the applicable legislation meetings and demonstrations must
be notified to the relevant civilian authority 48 hours in advance.
Right of assembly and demonstration may be restricted by law for
national security, public order, and prevention of crime, protection
of public moral, public health and the rights and freedoms of others
along with restrictions that may apply with respect to a designated
site, route and square.
 Prior notification is required under all circumstances.
 The Constitution guarantees freedom and privacy of communication
for all. However, there are regulations granting public institutions
the authority to restrict such right to an extent that would be below
the international standards.
Practice
 There are no reported illegal threats and pressures to suppress
online activists and bloggers based on the data from the first
quarters of 2011 and 2012. However, there are practices such as
obstructing access to certain CSOs’ and social networks’ web-sites.
“On several occasions, high-level officials criticized the social media
as a threat to society. 48 citizens were put in police custody for
posting Twitter messages about the Gezi Park protests but released
later. (The report of Ombudsman on Gezi Park Protests, 2013).
2.1. Easy-to-meet financial rules for CSO, which are proportionate to their turn-over and non-commercial activities
Legislation:
 The Law on Demonstrations and Meetings should be reviewed
and revised so that any assembly and demonstration that is not
Legislation (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN’s
Practice (BCSDN):
N/A
Practice (possible other):
Demand for uninterrupted online access to activists and bloggers.
2.1.a. CSOs' perception of the ease and effectiveness of financial rules and reporting requirements (disaggregated by type / size of CSO)
 16% of CSOs assessed that prescribed financial rule, obligations of
bookkeeping and accounting, referring to their organisations are
not clear and understandable, while for 80% were clear and
understandable
 For 23% 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 71% is
simple to implement30
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
Financial reporting
Financial reporting
Legislation:
Legislation:
Legislation (BCSDN):
1) Financial reporting (including money laundering regulations) and
 There is no holistic approach or implementation. Although the
 Explicit provisions prohibiting public administration from
accounting rules take into account the specific nature of the CSOs
applicable legislation gives the authority to prepare special
interfering with the internal matters of associations and
and are proportionate to the size of the organization and its
accounting regulations for associations and foundations to the
foundations should be introduced to the legislation.
type/scope of activities. (1.1.2.L3)
relevant administrative bodies, there is no such special regulation in
 The deficiencies in the legislation with respect to the definitions
Practice:
practice.
concerning audit and sanctions should be addressed. In order to
1) There are no practices of invasive oversight which impose
ensure that the audit is undertaken under equal conditions for all
 The Law on Associations lay down 17 types of penalties and fines. A
burdensome reporting requirements. (1.1.2.P2)
few of the critical penalties laid down in the law are: Associations
CSOs, the frequency, duration and the scope of the authority
administrator who do not keep the required books or records are
granted to the auditors should be explicitly regulated under the
charged with a prison sentence of 3 months to 1 year or with a
applicable legislation.
judicial fine,; breaching the requirement to use Turkish language in
Legislation (possible other):
their books, records and official institutions of the Republic of
Apart from suggested by BCSDN
Turkey are charged with an administrative fine of 1000 TRY. The
 Seek for reduction of penalties, fines and level of
Law on Foundations defines 3 penalties with administrative fine of
complexity for bookkeeping in associations and
Economic activities
500 TRY. The regulation on Foundations requires foundations to
foundations.
Legislation:
keep fewer books then associations.31
Practice (BCSDN):
1) Legislation allows CSOs to engage in economic activities. (1.1.3.L1) Practice:
N/A
30
Ibid 23
31
Ibid 1 pg 6
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
21
2)
3)
CSOs are allowed to receive foreign funding. (1.1.3.L2)
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)
 With respect to audit of CSOs that do rights-based activities, there is
a problem of unequal treatment of organizations, as the frequency,
duration and the scope of audits differ from organization to
organization.
Economic activities
Legislation:
 The Law on Collection of Aid providing very detailed regulations and
bureaucratic obligations continues to be another major obstacle for
CSOs to raise funds and maintain their sustainability. According to
this legislation, any CSO that does not have a special permit to
collect aid and contribution w/o prior approval has to apply for
permission to raise funds by submitting various sorts of information
and documentation to the authorities. There are only 20
organizations that have a special permit to collect aid w/o prior
permission. The law authorizes the administration to refuse the
application for collecting aid or to decide to which organization to
give the exceeding amount of aid/funds (if and once organization
collects more than they stated in their applications) collected.32
 Relevant provisions of the Turkish Commercial Code and the
Foundations Law regulates the economic activities of the CSOs.
 Associations and foundations may accept cash and in kind donations
from persons, institutions and organizations abroad subject to
notification requirements.
 Associations and foundations may accept donations and assistance
from corporations, individuals and other sources in order to realize
the purposes set out in their bylaws/charters.
Practice:
 Associations and foundations must establish a commercial
enterprise in order to carry out revenue generating activities.
 Use of foreign funds is not subject to approval; however, must be
notified to the relevant authorities.
 There is no legal barrier on accepting grants/donations from
individuals, corporations and other sources. The legislative
framework should be revised to facilitate corporate and individual
philanthropy.
 Establishing an endowment is mandatory for foundations. There is
no administrative difficulty in their establishment or operation. The
minimum endowment amount for foundations is 16.200 €.
Practice (possible other):
 Seek for equal treatment of all CSOs when subject to
auditing
Economic activities
Legislation (BCSDN):
Change needed in relevant tax laws
Legislation (possible other):
 Seek for liberalisation of fundraising possibilities for CSOs.
 Seek for simplification of possibilities for CSOs to engage
in economic activities.
 Seek for tax exemptions and deductions from public
service fees (electricity, etc) for CSO activities
Practice (BCSDN):
 N/A
Practice (possible other):
 Suggested changes under the legislation will improve
practice.

2.2. Donations are stimulated with adequate legislation and regulations
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
32
Incentives for individual and corporate giving
Legislation:
 Individuals and legal persons receive a 5% tax deduction only when
they donate to tax-exempt foundations and associations with public
benefit status. There is no tax deduction applicable to individuals
who are permanent employees.
 The conditions required to be met for a tax deduction are regulated
in the legislation.
Practice:
 Tax deduction applicable to individual and corporate donations is
limited with having a special status, tax-exempt status (for
Ibid 1 pg 7
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
22
Incentives for individual and corporate giving
Legislation (BCSDN):
 Tax incentives applicable to donations of institutions and
individuals should be increased and such donations should be
encouraged.
 Corporate social responsibility policies should be promoted and
certain tax exceptions should be introduced.
 Regulations ensuring that the donations made by permanent
employees are deducted from tax should be introduced.
 The scope of organizations that can benefit from tax exemption
should be expanded.
rights and watchdog organizations, effectively enjoy tax deductible
donations. (2.1.2.P3)




foundations) and public interest status (for associations), granted by
the Council of Ministers.
Only organizations that have tax-exempt or public interest status
may benefit from donations subject to tax deduction. Based on data
from the 2012, the rate of foundations with tax-exempt status is 5%
and the rate of associations with public interest status is 0.04%.
According to ‘World Giving Index 2012’ 10% of the Turkish
population made donations to the CSO, while in 2013 13% of
population made donations.
Online giving and crow-funding emerges as a new trend in Turkey.
However, the Law on Collection of Aid constitutes as a great
obstacle before these online tools.
Corporate Social Responsibility and its practices are still in a
transitional phase in Turkey. The number of companies
implementing CSR projects and sponsorship activities are increasing
due to growing expectations from employees and customers. 33
Legislation (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN’s
Practice (BCSDN):
N/A
Practice (possible other):
 Promote CSR
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
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)
2) The law provides tax benefits for economic activities of CSOs.
(2.1.1.L2)
3) 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)
Practice:
1) There is no direct or indirect (hidden) tax on grants reported
(2.1.1.P1)
2) Tax benefits for economic activities of CSOs are effective and
support the operation of CSOs (2.1.1.P2)
3) 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
financial cost (2.1.1.P4)
33
Ibid 1 pg 26
34
ibid 1 pg 18
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
Tax benefits for CSOs
Legislation:
 Grants and donations received by the CSOs are tax-exempt.
 There is no special advantage for economic activities. The
commercial enterprises of associations and foundations are treated
as business corporations.
 CSOs are exempt from profit/income tax on their ordinary
fundraising activities, but tax is incurred on all economic activities.
Economic enterprises of CSOs are considered as business by the
Ministry of Finance and hence are subject to pay the same utility
rates defined by Corporate Tax Law. This creates heavy burden on
CSOs as they implement economic activities with the aim to create
social benefit.34
 There is no tax benefit for the income the foundations obtain from
securities. Foundations and associations may obtain rent from their
real estate, dividend from contribution shares and share
certificates, interest over bonds and Turkish Lira and foreign
currency investments. Pursuant to the Income Tax Law all of the
foregoing revenues are subject to withholding tax to be paid by the
payer of the relevant revenue item.
 The legislation allows the establishment of endowments. CSOs are
exempt from Inheritance and Transfer and Corporate Taxes in
connection with donations made to their endowments.
Practice:
 Donations and grants are tax-exempt. Associations’ and
foundations’ donation collection outside of their center and income
generating activities are regulated under the Law on Collection of
Aids. The aforementioned law subject donation collection to heavy
bureaucratic rules and does not promote CSOs financial
sustainability.
 There is no tax exception for economic activities.
 It is free to make passive investments; however, there are different
23
Tax benefits for CSOs
Legislation (BCSDN):
 The Law on Collection of Aids should be revised so that the
existing barriers on collecting donations by foundations and
associations are removed
 The scope of tax exemptions should be expanded.
 Certain exceptions should be defined with respect to the
economic activities of CSOs
 Taxes applicable to CSOs’ passive investments should be
removed.
Legislation (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN
Practice (BCSDN):
N/A
Practice (possible other):
N/A

tax treatments applicable.
 Establishing an endowment is mandatory for foundations. There is
no administrative difficulty in their establishment or operation. The
minimum endowment amount for foundations is 16.200 €.
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)

There is no general information on percentage of the total
budget allocated to CSOs.
 Out of the Social Support Program of the Ministry of
Development, 495 (31% of the supported projects) were
implemented by CSos with total amount of 66.505.583 TL (34%
of the total funds allocated). Although the available data
shows that the allocated funds comply with the 25% Rule 35 , a
greater percentage of the funds were spent by the public
institutions.
 Project Support for Associations, by Department of
Associations, Ministry of Internal Affairs, in 2012 allocated
10.072904 TL for 221 projects, and in 2013 10.569613 TL for
248 projects (or in total this ministry allocated 3.3. million €,
and total number of CSOs is 98.945).
 CSO Capacity Building and Financial Support Programme form
the Prime Ministry- Presidency for Turks Abroad and Related
Communities – total amount of allocated funds is unknown
 Ministry of Culture and Tourism also accepts applications for
CSO projects to support with public funds – total amount of
allocated funds is unknown
 Youth and Sports Ministry: Ministry’s supports to youth
projects also includes those implemented by CSOs. In 2012
120 were supported with a budget of 10.201. 401 TL. In this
cfp, 79 project was awarded to CSOs with 730.425TL budget.
In 2013, 157 projects were awarded to CSOs with 19.107.194
TL36.
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)
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
35
Availability of public funding for institutional development of CSOs,
project support and co-financing of EU and other grants
Legislation:
 The Central Finance and Contracts Unit (CFCU) ensures that the EU
administrative procedures pertaining to the grants, works, supplies
and procurement of services adhered to in the context of EU funded
programs in Turkey. There is no holistic legislation with respect to
other state supports.
 There is a national unit (CFCU) for EU funds. Other funds are
individually distributed through relevant public institutions and
ministries. EU Community Programs are implemented via Turkish
National Agency 37
 There is no special state budget for funding CSOs. The Ministries
may set aside a budget if authorized by the Law. Lottery proceeds
are not allocated to CSOs in Turkey.
 There is no special regulation with respect to CSOs’ involvement in
SODES programme promises that at least 25% of the projects proposed by the Governorships should come from CSOs and occupational organisations established by law.
Ministry of Youth and Sports Activity Report: http://dergi.gsb.gov.tr/2014-Genclik-Projeleri-Destek-Programi-Kitap/#5/z
37 Turkish National Agency (http://www.ua.gov.tr/en/home), CFCU (http://www.mfib.gov.tr/index.php?lng=en)
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020
19 12 2013
24
36
Availability of public funding for institutional development of
CSOs, project support and co-financing of EU and other grants
Legislation (BCSDN):
 A national strategy with respect to public funding and fund
distribution should be developed and the applicable legislation
should be revised accordingly.
 Funds that will be distributed to CSOs should be announced
annually.
 Fund distribution process should be transparent and open to
CSOs’ involvement at every stage.
Legislation (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN’s
3)
4)
distribution and/or monitoring of the distribution of state funding.
(2.2.1.P2)
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)
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
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
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
the distribution of public funds.
Practice:
 There is no regular and continuous public funding to support the
infrastructure and activities of CSOs. There are low-budget funding
transferred to CSOs by the Ministries, but such resources remain
insufficient. Public funds are allocated to CSOs through Ministries
and project partnership mechanisms, and grant allocation or service
contracts are used only rarely.
 The Ministries distributing the funds are also responsible from
monitoring such funds. General budget audit is carried out by the
Ministry of Finance.
 As the public funds are not distributed in a transparent manner, it is
not possible to foresee the funds allocated to CSOs. The
determination of the funding amount is at the discretion of the
Ministries and may vary from year to year.
 Public funds are not distributed in a transparent manner. There are
no defined rules setting out CSO involvement.
Procedures and transparency of distribution of public funding
Legislation:
 A regulation published based on a Council of Ministers decision
regulates the conditions with respect to funding of associations and
foundations from public administrations’ budgets, conditions for
evaluation of funding requests, the use of such funding, principles
of monitoring and auditing, administrations’ authority to issue
regulations and disclosure of funding to public. Relevant ministries
have issued directives and regulations in connection with allocation
of funding to associations and similar organizations from their
budgets, based on the aforementioned regulation. Such ministries
have also prepared application guidelines and published the
amount of support provided in the last years and the names of the
projects that they have supported. Distribution of public funds is left
to the discretion of the commissions formed under the relevant
Ministries. Commission decisions do not disclose the projects that
apply for funding in their entirety or the reasons for selecting the
chosen project.
 Selection criteria are announced by the Ministries in advance.
 There are regulations with respect to disputes arising from selection
criteria. However, such procedures vary depending on the relevant
Ministry.
Practice:
 As there are no transparent mechanisms regulating the application
for and the process of allocation of public funds and aids to CSOs,
most of the time, the Ministries do not set out the total budget,
selection criteria and selection conditions for funds and aids
allocated to CSOs. There is no common practice for Ministry funds
other than EU funding. Furthermore, even when the total budget is
announced by the Ministries, detailed information with respect to
the allocation of the funding is not shared with public.
 Lack of common understanding and practice is observed in
connection with provision of financial aid to CSOs by the Ministries.
 Application to public funding does not create an additional cost for
CSOs. Bureaucratic conditions vary between different funds.
 There is no information with respect to the fairness of the tenders.
System for accountability, monitoring and evaluation of public
25
Practice (BCSDN):
N/A
Practice (possible other):
 Seek for improvements in the availability of government
funds for CSOs, in terms of volume, predictability, and
planning, and implementation
Procedures and transparency of distribution of public funding
Legislation (BCSDN):
 Procedure for distribution of public funds should be based on
transparent criteria.
 CSOs should have the right to object to disputes that may arise
during the selection process.
Legislation (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN
Practice (BCSDN):
 N/A
Practice (possible other):
 Look for harmonised procedure applicable to all Ministries
 Work on increasing capacities and awareness of Ministries
for support of CSOs.
System for accountability, monitoring and evaluation of public
funding
Legislation (BCSDN):
 A national strategy with respect to public funding that regulates
public funding mechanisms based on predetermined, concrete
3)
compared to other actors when providing state non-financial
resources. (2.2.4.P2)
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)
funding
Legislation:
 General principles regarding distribution of public funds, financial
accountability, monitoring and evaluation are regulated under the
Law No 5018 on Public Finance Management and Control.
 The aforementioned law also regulates the sanctions applicable to
violation of the procedure.
Practice:
 There is no data regarding the way the monitoring is carried out.
Although there are special Monitoring and Evaluation Units under
certain Ministries, the methods adopted and the consequences are
not known.
 There is no data as to whether the public organizations carry out
regular evaluation on effects/impact of public funds.
 There is no data available with respect to favoritism or
discrimination of state authorities against CSOs based on their
loyalties or political affiliation. Nevertheless, there are examples
supporting the view that there are cases of institutional
discrimination.
Availability of the state non-financial support
Legislation:
 Other than pre-determined fund mechanisms, no subsidy, grant or
any other resource may be transferred to associations and
foundations from the budgets of public institutions and
organizations.
 There are no well-defined practices. In relation to the well-defined
criteria and objectivism. There is no data with respect to
favouritism.
 Compared to the relations of CSOs at central level public
institutions, CSOs state that they “work more effectively and closely
with municipalities as opposed to governorships. Municipalities are
more eager to offer in-kind support to CSOs, often in the form of free
travel, meeting rooms, and assistance with announcing CSO
activities to larger audiences38”.
Practice:
 While the framework Law No. 5072 prohibits public support, there
are examples of cooperation between CSOs and certain public
institutions based on protocols. Different practices with respect to
cooperation between CSOs and local authorities exist.
 There is no data on equal treatment of CSOs in comparison with
other actors when providing state non-financial resources.
 There is no data on whether there are cases of state authorities
granting non-financial support only to CSOs, which do not criticize
its work, or cases of depriving critical CSOs of support. Also, there
are examples supporting the view that there is discrimination.
CSOs’ engagement in different state services and equality of
competition among all providers for state contracts
Legislation:
 Municipality Law that gives responsibility to municipalities to assist
38
standards, should be adopted in order to enhance
accountability and transparency of the public funding cycle.
 National rules regarding distribution of public funds must be
determined.
 Monetary and in-kind support to the CSOs by public institutions
should be expanded through defined transparent mechanisms.
Legislation (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN
Practice (BCSDN):
N/A
Practice (possible other):
 The information on the project support should be
transparent and equal treatment should be ensured.
Availability of the state non-financial support
Legislation (BCSDN):
 The Law of the Relations of Associations and Foundations with
Public Institutions (No 5072) should be amended and the
public’s cash and in kind support to the CSOs should be
expanded and extended through defined transparent
mechanisms.
Legislation (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN
Practice (BCSDN):
N/A
Practice (possible other):
 Closer monitoring of disbursement, equality and
impartiality when non-financial and in-kind support is
granted to the CSOs and other actors.
CSOs’ engagement in different state services and equality of
competition among all providers for state contracts
Legislation (BCSDN):
 There is no special provision in the legislation with respect to
service provision by CSOs. CSOs should be identified as
participants and special provisions with respect to service
agreements of CSOs should be included in the relevant texts.
Legislation (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN
Practice (BCSDN):
N/A
Practice (possible other):
 Seek for varieties of possibilities for engagement of CSOs
in social services
Civil Society Organisations and Public Sector Relations: Problems and Expectations, The Results of the Consultation Meetings and an Evaluation Report, Third Sector Foundation of Turkey (TUSEV), December 2013.
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
26
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
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)
4) 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)
2) 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
quality of service providers. (3.3.4.L1)
2) 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)
and support CSOs, limits the beneficiaries of this support to those
with special status: Associations with public benefit status and
foundations with tax exempt status. In addition, in 2012, an
amendment was made on article 75 of the Municipality Law, which
aimed to have possibility to further hamper cooperation between
CSOs and municipalities. TUSEV Civil Society Monitoring Report
2012 based on an expert opinion states that the new article
contains neither a clarification regarding the types and nature of
service activities to be supported nor the criteria for permission. In
such a context, this revision is increasing the discretionary power of
the central government and accordingly decreasing the freedom of
association39.
 Relevant laws and regulations allow CSOs to provide services in
various areas in cooperation with the public sector.
 Provisions in the relevant regulations are binding with respect to
the additional services to be provided by CSOs as well.
 The relevant legislation and regulations do not discriminate
between CSOs and other legal entities.
Practice:
 Although there are no barriers on CSO competition, as there is no
practice of promoting such competition either, examples of service
provision by the civil society are limited.
 Although there are certain examples in practice, there is no general
regulation with respect to CSOs involvement to such processes.
 There is no data.
Commitments of state to funding services and predictability and longterm availability of the funding
Legislation:
 There is no holistic funding strategy that would ensure variety of
services which could be provided by the CSOs, including multi-year
program
 There is no legal barrier to the CSOs receiving public funding for the
provision of different services.
 There is no special regulation and a holistic approach. CSOs can sign
long- term contract depending on the conditions of the service
contract.
Practice:
 Although there are CSOs that provide services, they are very few.
 Since there is no data and probably no holistic implementation, it is
also unknown if the funds received for the social services are
sufficient to cover basic costs, including proportionate institutional
(overhead) costs.
 There is no mass data in relation if there are delays in payments and
flexibility in funding, with the aim of providing the best quality of
services, but there are examples that CSOs face problems regarding
payments.
Clarity of procedures for contracting services and transparency in
39
TUSEV Civil Society Monitoring Report, 2012.
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
27


Seek for CSOs involvement in all stages of developing and
providing social services
Seek for registration/licencing procedures that are snot
overly burdensome for the CSOs.
Commitments of state to funding services and predictability and
long-term availability of the funding
Legislation (BCSDN):
 A broad policy document should be prepared with respect to
public funding and the conditions should be explicitly defined.
Legislation (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN
Practice (BCSDN):
N/A
Practice (possible other):
 Need for closer monitoring and regulation of state funding
for provision of social services
 Need for promotion of state outsourcing for provision of
social services
Clarity of procedures for contracting services and transparency in
selection of service providers including CSOs
Legislation (BCSDN):
 Explicit provisions with respect to CSOs, including provisions to
avoid conflict of interest, should be added to tender
selection of service providers including CSOs
Legislation:
 The procedures with respect to services are regulated under the
legislation covers CSOs as well. (Law on Public Procurement)
 There is no regulation specifying the defined procedures for
contracting services, which allow for transparent selection of CSO to
provide services.
 There are no common selection criteria for selection of service
providers. In some of the cases price is the lead criterion for
selection of service providers but also there are instances that
service providers are selected in accordance to their technical
capacities
 Provisions with respect to transparency and conflicts of interests
are included in the relevant agreements.
 There is a right to appeal against tender results.
Practice:
 Contracting services to CSOs is not common practice.
 There is no data in relation of fairness of competition during the
tendering procedure for social services.
 Generally, the tender processes are carried out with sufficient
capacity.
 In some cases price is the leading criterion for selection of service
providers but also there are instances that service providers are
selected in accordance to their technical capacities.
Clarity of a system for accountability, monitoring and evaluation of
service provision
Legislation:
 The monitoring ad evaluation procedures of service provision are
defined in the relevant legislation.
 The legislation does not include special provisions with respect to
CSOs.
 Transparency, monitoring and evaluation processes are defined in
the relevant legislation. There is no special provision with respect to
CSOs in the legislation.
Practice:
 There is no data available if the CSOs are subject to extensive
control.
 The working, arrangements and frequency of the monitoring
process are not known.
 There is no data with respect to the quality of the process related to
the evaluation of quality and effects/impact of services provided, as
the results are not shared with public.
Changing relations CSOs and government
3
Civil society and
public institutions
work in partnership
through dialogue and
cooperation, based
on willingness, trust
and mutual
acknowledgment
around common
interests
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
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
28
specifications.
Legislation (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN, but also adding provisions determining
clear selection procedure
Practice (BCSDN):
N/A
Practice (possible other):
 Monitor and work on improvements of the fairness of
competition, with conflict of interests being avoided,
including clear selection criteria and procedures
 Seek jointly developed code of conduct for independency
of CSOs that carry out sub contracts to deliver social
services.
Clarity of a system for accountability, monitoring and evaluation
of service provision
Legislation (BCSDN):
 Monitoring and evaluation conditions with respect to service
provision should be explicitly defined and shared with the
relevant parties ahead of the tendering process.
Legislation (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN, but also look specific provisions within
the relevant legislation that will encompass focus on CSOs.
Practice (BCSDN):
N/A
Practice (possible other):
 Closer monitoring of monitoring and evaluation practice of
service provisions
 Closer monitoring of inclusion and treatment of CSOs in
selection process for service provision as well as during the
implementation.
* 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:
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)
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
CSO-government cooperation strategic document
Legislation:
 There is no general strategy for cooperation between government
and CSOs. However, the Regulation on the Procedures and
Principles of Legislation Preparation includes provisions that
regulate getting the civil society’s opinion with respect to a draft
prepared by the relevant ministry and the public institutions and
organizations before such draft is submitted to the Prime Ministry.
Also, the strategy documents of the relevant ministries include
provisions such as identifying CSOs operating in the field of activity
of the relevant ministry and being open to cooperation as
stakeholders.
 Although there is no general strategy document, there is a
reference to communication and cooperation with respect to
shared goals between the public sector and the civil society in the
Strategy Plans prepared by the ministries and various organizations
in accordance with the Law No 5018 on Public Finance Management
and Control.
 Although there is no general binding document, certain public
institutions consult CSOs when preparing strategic plans.
Practice:
 There is no general CSO participation. CSOs are able to get involved
in the process by invitation from the relevant public institutions.
 Since there is no strategic paper, it is hard to measure the level of
cooperation between state and CSOs.
 There is no monitoring and evaluation process of the paper since
there is no strategic document. In practice different state
institutions have monitoring and evaluation procedures, which are
not transparent.
 Department of Associations and the General Directorate of
Foundations keep the official statistical data with respect to civil
society. However, those data are not taken into account in
connection with development of Public-CSO cooperation and are
not transferred to national statistics system.
Accessibility of all draft policies and laws to the public (easiness and
timelines)
Legislation:
 The Regulation on the Procedures and Principles of Legislation
Preparation includes provisions setting forth that, in the event that
it concerns the general public, drafts may be brought to the general
public attention by the relevant ministry through the Internet, press
or broadcasting in order to inform or take the feedback into account
during the opinion evaluation process.
 Publication of the legislation prepared is at the related public
institution’s discretion.
 Under the penal provisions of the Right to Information Law there
are sanctions applicable to civil servants and other public officials in
the event that they are negligent, at fault or wilful in the
29
16/ 100
CSO-government cooperation strategic document
Legislation (BCSDN):
 A principle document setting forth the framework of the civil
society-public cooperation should be prepared in a
participatory manner.
 The strategy document to be prepared should set out
mechanisms that meet participatory, transparent and
egalitarian criteria that would allow CSOs to provide their
opinions.
Legislation (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN
Practice (BCSDN):
N/A
Practice (possible other):
N/A
Accessibility of all draft policies and laws to the public (easiness
and timelines)
Legislation (BCSDN):
 The legislation should be more binding in order to be able to
solve the problems faced during the implementation of the
Right to Information Law.
 All draft legislation and policy documents prepared by the
public institutions must be accessible by all, required
mechanisms for the CSOs to provide their opinions should be
developed and a sufficient time to respond should be provided.
Legislation (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN
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)
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
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
implementation of the law.
 Although there is an increase in the number of published drafts, not
all drafts are being published.
Practice:
 Problems regarding applications made in accordance with the Right
to Information Law continue to arise in practice. Common problems
that arise often include differences in application procedures;
instances where no response is provided within the time period
prescribed under the law and questions left unanswered or
insufficiently answered on the grounds that additional research is
required to respond.
 Although there are certain initiatives related to sanctioning violation
of the Right to Information Law, there is no data on whether any
such sanctions are applied.
Representativeness of CSOs in discussions in cross-sector bodies and
clarity of criteria and selection process
Legislation:
 CSOs involvement in decision-making process is not required
/mandatory by the existing legislation.
 There are neither defined criteria in the legislation, nor clear
guidelines on how to ensure appropriate representation from civil
society, that is base on transparent and pre-determent criteria.
Practice:
 Practice related to inclusion of CSOs by decision-making and
advisory bodies on issues and policies relevant to CSOs, varies
between public institutions and ministries.
 Although there is no supportive data, there are examples that
support the view on existence of unfavourable examples related to
ability of CSOs to freely present and defend their positions in
decision-making and advisory bodies.
 There are no objective mechanisms and procedures with respect to
the selection processes of the CSOs and their representatives that
get involved. Some CSOs mention that depending on the relevant
institution, personal relationships may have an impact on the
selection process.
 Although there is no supportive mechanism it is known that there
are CSOs that use alternative ways of advocacy.
Recognition of the state, through the operation of its institutions, of
the importance of the development of and cooperation with the CS
Legislation:
 There is no national level institution or mechanism. With the
mandate to facilitate cooperation with CSOs Counseling services are
carried out by the Department of Associations and the General
Directorate of Foundations.
 There is no binding provision on involvement of CSOs in the
decisions taken by the competent institutions or mechanism(s)
Practice:
 There is no special mechanism with respect to Public-CSO
relationship within the Department of Associations and the General
Directorate of Foundations, which are mainly regulatory and
supervisory bodies; therefore there are no resources at all for
facilitation of the CSO-government dialogue.
 There is no holistic practice as there are no egalitarian, sustainable
30
Practice (BCSDN):
N/A
Practice (possible other):
 Greater monitoring of implementation of the Right to
Information Law, and seek removal of barriers and/or
wrong application concerning the Law.
Representativeness of CSOs in discussions in cross-sector bodies
and clarity of criteria and selection process
Legislation (BCSDN):
 Provisions with respect to CSOs involvement in the decisionmaking process should be added to the legislation.
Legislation (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN
Practice (BCSDN):
N/A
Practice (possible other):
 Lay down mechanisms for inclusion of CSOs in decisionmaking and advisory bodies, where CSOs are able to freely
express their position w/o sanctioning , and ensuring clear
and transparent selection process with pre-determent
criteria.
Recognition of the state, through the operation of its institutions,
of the importance of the development of and cooperation with the
CS
Legislation (BCSDN):
 Relationship with civil society is not an area that the public
sector considers strategic. Public institutions that would directly
manage the relationship with civil society should be formed.
Legislation (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN
Practice (BCSDN):
N/A
Practice (possible other):
 Once public institution for cooperation with CSOs is
established, it will be possible to monitor patterns and
level of CSOs involvement of CSOs in government decision-
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)
and accessible mechanisms, so the CSOs are not regularly consulted
and involved in processes and decision-making by the competent
institutions and mechanism(s).
 Public institutions collaborate with CSOs only when they want to
share information, need expertise or want to make an impression
on the public. Relationship between CSOs- government is regarded
as one sided, since public institutions do not respond to the
demands of cooperation from CSOs at the same rate. Relationship is
based on individual relations and not institutionalized.40
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:
 Rules with respect to CSO involvement in decision-making are set
out in the Regulation on the Procedures and Principles of Legislation
Preparation. As consulting CSOs is not mandatory under the
Regulation, involvement of CSOs takes place through invitation and
is usually limited with objecting to or approving the decisions.
 There is no holistic approach and no regular policies for educational
programs/policies of civil servants on CSO involvement in the work
of public institutions.
 Individually, there are sporadic cases of carrying out cooperation
with civil society in certain units of the relevant ministries. Having
said that, an expert from the Public Supervisory Institution
(Ombudsman) attends cooperation and coordination with civil
society organizations and other requests.
Practice:
 Public-CSO relationships are not continuous and are left to the
discretion of the public institutions’ decision makers. There are no
specific, egalitarian, continuous and accessible mechanisms that
regulate CSO involvement in policy making.
 The Regulation on the Procedures and Principles of Legislation
Preparation states that Professional organizations with public
institution status and CSOs should provide their comments on the
drafts within thirty days. Otherwise, they are considered to have
issued an affirmative opinion.
 There is no objective mechanism that sets out the feedback,
negotiation and cooperation methods regarding the consultation
process.
 Various trainings have been provided to civil servants during the
preparation process of the strategy documents of the relevant
ministries and public institutions. The scope and number of such
trainings are unknown.
 There is no data to allow for measurement on functionality and
level of capacities of the units/offices for coordination and
monitoring of public consultations.
 Central-level administrators’ perception and approach towards
CSOs, to a great extent, are based on their individual experience and
close encounters with vocational/professional, socializing and
hometown organisations.
Reputation grade of CSOs among representatives of public
institution was 6,1 o 10. Some of the notable critiques towards CSOs
40
Ibid 1, pg 29
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
31
making processes.
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:
 The legislation defining CSO involvement in decision-making is
not binding on the public. Provisions ensuring civil society
participation should be added to the legislation.
Legislation (possible other):
In addition to the BCSDN’s recommendation, also
 Adopt standards on involvement of CSOs in the policy and
decision-making processes in line with regulatory practices
prescribing minimum requirements, which every policymaking process needs to fulfill.
Practice:
N/A
Practice (possible other):
 Promote importance of development of and cooperation
between government and CS

was that 1) they have political motivations and not
scientific/analytical, 2) their approach is not towards negotiation
but confrontation, 3) their communication and language is
excluding and harsh based on prejudice, 4) they are only criticising
and not proposing solutions, 5) they advocate from away but not
seek for dialogue with public institutions.
 CSOs believe that majority of civil servants do not have basic
knowledge of human rights and rights based thinking and hence do
not take the necessary precautions to protect the rights to secrecy
and confidentiality, for instance, in cases concerning women’s and
children’s rights. 41
CSOs Capacities
4. Capable, transparent
and accountable CSOs
4.1. CSOs' internal governance structures are transparent and accountable to members/constituents/beneficiaries
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



31% of CSOs believe that decision making in CSOs in their
country is in compliance with prescribed rules and laws of the
organisation, 44% believe that decisions are made by some
individual or top management, 25% that decisions are made
with prescribed rules including consultations with the employees
and volunteers
27% of CSOs stated that decision making in their organisation is
in compliance with prescribed rules and laws of the
organisation, 42% stated that decisions are made by some
individual or top management, 31% that decisions are made
with prescribed rules including consultations with the employees
and volunteers
71% 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
97% CSOs inform members of their organisation about the
results of their work, 93% inform founders of their organisation,
95% inform management board, 93% inform beneficiaries of
their organisation, 83% inform general public, 96% general
assembly, and 92% inform supervisory board42
4.2. CSOs are able to communicate the results of their activities to the public
4.2.a. External perception of importance and impact of CSOs activities.

4.2.a. independent survey run by TACSO


56.3% of surveyed trust to NGOs in their country, general
population trust the most to the President of the state
Presidency 70.1% of surveyed, and the least to media 21.0% of
surveyed
38.6% of general population do not trust to NGOs, 77.1% of
surveyed do not trust to media, and 66.8% of surveyed do not
trust to political parties
53.3% of the general population believes that NGOs support
dealing with problems in their country, police supports the most
in dealing with problems 64.2%, and media support the least
31.3%
41
ibid 1, pg 30
Ibid 23
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
42
2014-2020
19 12 2013
32

57% 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 42% of CSOs believe it is due insufficient (or
inadequate) CSO activities
Almost all topics and issues listed in the survey were assessed
relatively low in the range of 60%, by over 78% of surveyed
believe that education is the most important topic, only 40% of
surveyed expressed interest in fighting against corruption as the
least important topic43
69% of surveyed believe that CSOs in their country are active in
fighting problems in culture and art area, 65% believe in the area
of education, and 51% in ecology
67% of surveyed believe that CSOs in their country are not active
in fighting problems in rural development area, 65% believe in
the area of fighting against drug abuse, and 59% in
employment44



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








80% CSOs stated that they publish their statute on their web
page, 5% stated that the statute is accessible to the public, 15%
stated that the statute is not accessible to the public
27% (the most) of CSOs stated that their statute is accessible to
public within the project
62% of CSOs stated that they have a rulebook and it available on
their web page, 4% stated that they have a rulebook, 11% stated
that have a rulebook, but it is not accessible to the public, and
23% stated that they do not have a rulebook
27% of CSOs believe that up to 10% of CSOs in Turkey publish
organisational Annual Program Statement of Work, 37% believe
that only 11-30% of CSOs do so, 27% believe that 31%-70%
organisation publish APS of Work, and 8% believe that more
than 70% do so
61% of CSOs stated that they publish their APS of Work on their
web page, and 31% stated that they do not have APS of Work
accessible to public
32% of CSOs belie that up to 10% of CSOs publish organisational
financial reports, 37% of CSOs believe that 11%-30% publish
financial report, 20% believe that from 31-70% and 9% of CSOs
believe that more than 70% of CSO publish financial reports
49% of CSOs stated that they have financial reports accessible to
public and published on the web page, while 43% stated they do
not have financial reports available to the public
39% of CSOs believe that up to 10% of CSOs publish audited
reports, and 8% believe that more than 70% publish audited
reports
47% of CSOs stated that they have audited financial reports
accessible to the public by publishing it on their web page, 46%
43
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.
44 Ibid 23
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
33
of CSOs stated that they do not have audited financial reports
available to the public45
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
 26% of CSOs evaluate their projects pro forma, while 74%
evaluate projects with the purpose of establishing efficiency and
drawing a lesson for further projects
4.4.a. independent survey run by TACSO
 31% of CSOs use external evaluation for realisation of their
projects
 23% 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
 72% of CSOs have established system for assessment for
implementation of organisation’s strategic plan
5. Effective CSOs
5.1. CSO activities are guided by strategic long-term organisational planning
5.1.a. Share of CSOs which have developed strategic plans including human resources development activities in order to attract and retain talent
 75% of CSOs have developed strategic plan, 15% do not have a
strategic plan
5.1.a. independent survey run by TACSO
 79% use internal evaluation when employing staff in their
organisation
 27% of CSOs neither have established internal system for
assessment of efficiency of employees in their organisation, nor
28% of CSOs have established system for implementation of
strategic plan
 54% of CSOs stated that they have a human resources
development plan aimed at attacking and keeping talented
associates, while 27% stated that they are developing such plan
 71% of CSO stated that they manage to keep talented
associates, and 75% believe that they manage to attract quality
new people
5.2. CSOs use research and other forms of evidence to underpin their activities
45
Ibid 23
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
34
5.2.a. Number of CSOs' who use adequate argumentation and analysis for achieving advocacy goals
 68% of CSOs active in public advocacy, mainly/frequently uses
research for their advocacy actions, while 32% of them
mainly/very rarely use research
5.2.a. independent survey run by TACSO
 90% of CSOs believe that they have enough information at their
disposal
 9% of CSOs use official data of national statistical offices,
ministries, 88% many sources of information 46
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
 0% of CSOs indicated that they do not belong to any
international network, 17% stated that belong to one
international network, 10% stated that they belong to 2
international networks, 15% belong to more than 3 international
networks
5.3.a. independent survey run by TACSO
 0% of CSOs are not active in any of international networks, 15%
are active in one international network, 9% are active in 2
international networks, and 15% are active in more than 3
international networks
 0% of CSOs indicated that they do not belong to any national
network, 16% stated that belong to one national network, 13%
stated that they belong to 2 national networks, 27% belong to
more than 3 national networks
 0% of CSOs are not active in any of national networks, 17% are
active in one national network, 13% are active in 2 national
networks, and 25% are active in more than 3 national networks
 0% of CSOs indicated that they do not belong to any local
network, 12% stated that belong to one local network, 8% stated
that they belong to 2 local networks, 27% belong to more than 3
local networks
 0% of CSOs are not active in any of local networks, 13% are
active in one local network, 7% are active in 2 local networks,
and 26% are active in more than 3 local networks
 54% of CSOs do not find CSO networks efficient, while 46% find
them efficient
 28% of CSO stated that their contributed in terms of the
exchange of experience/knowledge from being member of a
46
Ibid 23
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
35
network, 13% gained in terms of joint projects, 18% gained in
mutual support and assistance47
6. Financially sustainable
CSOs
6.1. Fund-raising activities are rooted in CSOs' long-term strategic plans and the core mission of the organisation
6.1.a. Percentage of CSOs that confirm that they are able to raise funds according to their strategic plans
 48% of CSOs believe that CSOs in Turkey mainly adopt to donors’
priorities and collect funds also for other activities not in line
with their organisational strategic plan, while 52% of CSOs
believe that CSOs in Turkey mainly stich with their strategic plan
and collect funds for activities in line with their strategic plan
6.1.a. independent survey run by TACSO
 56% of CSOs stated that they mainly stick t0 their strategic plans
and collects fund for activities in line with its strategic plan,
while 45% stated that they adapt to donors’ priorities and collect
funds also for other activities not in line with its strategic plans48
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
 0% of CSOs stated that they did not have any donors in the past
year, 4% had one donor, 7% had between 2-3 donors, 3% had 45 donors, and 24% over 6 donors
6.2.a. independent survey run by TACSO
 66% of CSOs had income from membership fees, 44% had from
citizens, 24% form local self-government and/or regional
administration, 17% from other foreign private or state
resources, 29% form the EU funds, 23% form
governments/ministries/state administration bodies, 19% from
private companies operating in the country, 11% from public
companies49
47
Ibid 23
Ibid 23
49 Ibid 23
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
48
2014-2020
19 12 2013
36