TACSO
Report
Regional Conference: “Monitoring of the EU Guidelines for the Support to Civil
Society in the Enlargement Countries, 2014-2020 – Year 1”
Belgrade, April 27-30, 2015
Technical Assistance for
Civil Society Organisations
Regional Office
This project is funded
by the European Union.
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 2
Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 4
Overview of the sessions ....................................................................................................................... 4
Session 1 – National consultations: Review of the national targets and benchmarks defined
throughout the national consultations facilitated by TACSO with suggestions for improvements ... 4
Session 2 – Progress Report inputs: Defining the framework for the country Progress Report 2015
in relation to the findings for 2015 against the EU Guidelines.......................................................... 9
National Working Group Presentations ........................................................................................... 15
Albania ............................................................................................................................................ 15
Bosnia and Herzegovina ................................................................................................................. 17
Kosovo.............................................................................................................................................. 18
Macedonia ....................................................................................................................................... 20
Montenegro ..................................................................................................................................... 22
Serbia ............................................................................................................................................... 24
Turkey .............................................................................................................................................. 26
Session 3 – Monitoring: Review of the needed elements for the establishment of a monitoring
system .............................................................................................................................................. 28
Conclusions and recommendations for the future - the closing remarks of the conference ................ 31
Evaluation results ................................................................................................................................. 32
Media coverage .................................................................................................................................... 34
Annex A. .............................................................................................................................................. 35
Agenda ............................................................................................................................................. 35
Annex B ............................................................................................................................................... 35
List of Participants ........................................................................................................................... 35
Annex C ............................................................................................................................................... 35
Template for setting national targets and benchmarks .................................................................... 35
Annex D ............................................................................................................................................... 35
Presentation: Overview of the process and what are the intended objectives of the Conference by
Jasenka Perović ................................................................................................................................ 35
Annex E ............................................................................................................................................... 35
Presentation: EU Guidelines for the Support to Civil Society in the Enlargement Countries 20142020 - Updated version, April, 2015 by Tina Divjak ...................................................................... 35
Annex F................................................................................................................................................ 35
Presentation: Additional modifications to benchmarks and targets, by Tina Divjak ...................... 35
1
Technical Assistance for
Civil Society Organisations
Regional Office
This project is funded
by the European Union.
Technical Assistance to the Civil Society Organisations 2 (TACSO 2) from the IPA Beneficiaries
EuropeAid/133642/C/SER/Multi
Report
Regional Conference: “Monitoring of the EU Guidelines for the Support to Civil Society in
the Enlargement Countries, 2014-2020 – Year 1”
Introduction
The Directorate General (DG) for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations (NEAR), Western
Balkans Regional Cooperation and Programmes Unit developed the ‘EU Guidelines for the Support
to Civil Society in the Enlargement Countries, 2014-2020’ (EU Guidelines), which includes a
Results Framework that sets out the objectives, results and indicators for the European Union’s (EU)
support to civil society with the purpose of measuring progress at the country level as well as across
the enlargement region over the next seven years.
Within the EU Guidelines, it is foreseen that Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) will be involved in
the yearly monitoring of the indicators and results with TACSO’s support. Yearly national and
regional meetings should analyse the development concerning the CSOs in all the countries and their
advancement towards the targets. The monitoring process of the EU Guidelines was envisaged to
commence with the Baseline report, whose purpose is to look at the starting position per indicator of
the Results Framework of the EU Guidelines.
TACSO was tasked to collect the needed information for the development of the Baseline report, a
majority of which was carried out during the spring of 2014, using the following three main sources:
1) information deriving from the Balkan Civil Society Development Network (BCSDN) country
reports that gives us an overview of the existence or lack thereof t of the relevant legislation
and accompanying practice;
2) information about the CSOs’ perception/understanding of the practice (IPSOS report); and
3) the TACSO Needs Assessment Reports.
The initial event, the Regional Conference: Promotion of the CSF (EU) Guidelines: Current
situation and way forward in monitoring, programming and progress reporting for the 2014-2020
period was held in Tirana, Albania in May 2014. The objective of the event was to initiate
discussions on topics relevant to the full utilization of the EU Guidelines.
These discussion topics included: possible ways in defining the national targets per indicators of the
Results Framework; possible role of government representatives should one wish to ensure the
sustainability of the utilization, monitoring of, and progress reporting against the EU Guidelines;
major topics deriving from the EU Guidelines whose additional attention would contribute the most
to the changes within the CSO environment; and the most effective way of addressing these topics.
2
Technical Assistance for
Civil Society Organisations
Regional Office
This project is funded
by the European Union.
As a follow up to the first event concerning the EU Guidelines, the following was recommended:
 Refinement of the indicators – then DG NEAR is open to some refinement of the indicators
if needed;
 Targets – should be further developed throughout the national consultations facilitated by
TACSO;
 TACSO should develop briefings deriving from the Baseline reports and country ‘Traffic
lights’ for the Progress reports (PRs); and
 TACSO’s baseline survey (IPSOS) – should go through the national commenting process,
and TACSO can explore the need for additional national presentations of IPSOS’s country
reports;
 Development of the national action plans (governments, CSOs and European Union
Delegations (EUDs)) on how to conduct monitoring, using regional conferences for cross
checking from country to country – process to be facilitated by TACSO; and
 Traffic lights1 – should also be further re-assessed through the national consultations
facilitated by TACSO.
Through the period June 2014 to date, TACSO has been carrying out processes related to the
aforementioned recommendations. These processes were designed to enable the setting of national
targets and benchmarks in a participatory manner on both the regional and national levels. In
addition, during these processes, the delegations were encouraged to provide inputs that would
contribute to the definition of the elements of the accompanying monitoring systems as well as to
provide feedback related to the TACSO Baseline survey. Furthermore, in agreement with the
relevant stakeholders, notably DG NEAR, TACSO commenced the establishment of a working
group with the mandate to mainly contribute to the possible refinement of some of the indicators of
the EU Guidelines.
As a consequence of the aforementioned processes and due to the period of the monitoring cycle
related to the EU Guidelines in relation to drafting the country EU Progress Reports for 2015, the
regional event titled “Monitoring of the EU Guidelines for the Support to Civil Society in the
Enlargement Countries, 2014-2020 – Year 1” took place on Aril 28 – 30, in Belgrade. This event
brought together national representatives who were also involved in the previously described
processes.
The objective of the event was to contribute to steering the desired changes and processes across the
countries in the Western Balkan and Turkey along the set results and indicators of the Results
Framework of the EU Guidelines.
It was expected that during the conference, participants would have a chance to:
 define the national targets and benchmarks produced by the national consultations facilitated
by TACSO;
 draft possible inputs for the country EU Progress Reports 2015 in relation to the findings for
2015 against the EU Guidelines;
 revise some of the indicators/ suggested benchmarks and targets of the EU Guidelines,
preserving the regional perspective of the Guidelines;
The Baseline summaries, often referred to as ‘Traffic Lights’, are, for communication purposes, structured by using the colours, red, yellow and green
(rating performance or status from bad to good) so as to easily indicate a country’s progress against the parameters of the EU Guidelines.
1
3
Technical Assistance for
Civil Society Organisations
Regional Office


This project is funded
by the European Union.
compare key indicators among countries and identify actions to be undertaken, also with
focus assistance; and
review the key elements for the possible national monitoring systems of the EU Guidelines.
The expected outputs from the conference included:
 a comparison of the indicators per country for the entire enlargement region;
 draft inputs for the 2015 Progress Report per country;
 actions to be taken by DG NEAR, the EUDs, CSOs, TACSO, Resource Centres (RCs), and
Governments; and
 an overview of the main elements of and requirements for the national monitoring systems for
2015.
Methodology
The Conference objectives required a careful design of the Conference flow so as to ensure the
maximum interaction among the participants.
During the first session, participants were seated in so-called mixed tables where participants from
two to three countries were included. This seating arrangement right from the beginning of the event
enabled immediate interaction and peering of participants, sharing experiences and lessons learned.
The second session enabled more work at the level of the national teams, thus supporting the
possibility for tripartite dialogue between the country representatives from the government, CSOs
and EUD.
Lastly, during the third session, the Resource Centres were positioned as possible future carriers of
some of the tasks related to the monitoring of the EU Guidelines.
Overview of the sessions
Session 1 – National consultations: Review of the national targets and benchmarks
defined throughout the national consultations facilitated by TACSO with suggestions
for improvements
Session one aimed to remind the participants about the process and to share with them the
conclusions and learning from the process, i.e. which indicators would be better off if reformulated;
what were the most difficult targets and benchmarks to deal with and how they could be
reformulated; and what are some additional open questions identified and how they can be
addressed. Background document for this session was the template for setting national targets and
benchmarks (annex C).
The objective of this session was to review the national targets and benchmarks, Jasenka Perovic,
TACSO Team Leader gave an overview of the process and what were the intended objectives of
the Conference (annex D).
In her presentation, Tina Divjak, Head of Advocacy for the Centre for information service, cooperation and development of NGOs, talked about the process of updating the EU guidelines and
4
Technical Assistance for
Civil Society Organisations
Regional Office
This project is funded
by the European Union.
presented the changes that were made to the EU Guidelines after all the national consultations (annex
E).
Aleksandra Vesic Antic, Senior Advisor at Catalyst, shortly presented the challenges they (the
Serbia Working Group (WG)) faced working on the national targets.
The first challenge that the Serbian WG faced was where and how to start, and in order to get to the
targets they needed to have starting data which again opened the debate that started last year in
Albania about the baseline data for 2013. The pragmatic approach was taken and they worked with
the data they had at that point identified some other sources of data for 2013 and then compared the
data and decided which they would use for the particular indicator and benchmark. So, they set aside
the question of data accuracy and accepted this data as the starting point. The lesson they learned
from this is that the Guidelines document should not be viewed as a cemented document, but rather a
document that will be constantly reviewed and if necessary revised.
The second challenge was that for some of the benchmarks they simply did not have the data or they
had concerns that some of the important factors were not included in the benchmarks, with Tina’s
assistance they sorted out most of their dilemmas.
The third issue was the question of the verification of the data. There were questions in the survey
for which people were inclined to give socially acceptable answers, so the concern was if they really
had the right percentage of CSOs who have, for example, a strategic plan or human resources
development plan. Their suggested solution was that their Resource Centre, when they do the next
round of the survey, should verify the data on the sub-sample, and then compare this verified data
with the one they received from the survey.
During the first session, participants were seated in so-called mixed tables where participants from
two to three countries were included. This seating arrangement right from the beginning of the event
enabled immediate interaction and peering of participants, sharing experiences and lessons learned.
Their discussions were presented in plenary.
Table 1 (black)
Most of the discussions in the group were on sharing their experiences.
The group confirmed all the changes and shared the concerns:
 The biggest problem is reliable data and statistics.
 Indicator 1.2 b Number of volunteers increased by 50% - with the questions: “if we do not
know how many volunteers we have, how do we measure the increase?”
 Another issue was raised on how many active CSOs there are.
The Black table working group proposed the need for technical assistance through a regional project
on data collection. Every country should have specific and the same methodology of collecting data
to help us measure these indicators. The country strategic papers on the Instrument for Pre-Accession
(IPA) funding can help develop and measure support given to the countries.
Table 2 (yellow)
This group took into consideration that this is a regional issue, so they tried to avoid national
discussions on benchmarking targets.
 Indicator 1.2.a Specify terminology for “active work population” in order to avoid
5
Technical Assistance for
Civil Society Organisations
Regional Office




This project is funded
by the European Union.
misunderstandings.
Indicator 1.2.b Volunteering – it should be based on legislation. Enabling legal environment,
specify who is the source of information/data – Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) or
governmental bodies? Suggestion – legislative framework should be put as the first issue,
because some countries still do not have legislation for voluntarism.
2.2. Some countries have no specific law dividing companies and individuals. Suggestion –
divide these indicators, 60% for cooperatives and 60% for individuals.
2.4 58% of income should come from public sources, while 6.2.a says no more than 50%
should come from another sources, so it creates confusion and should be clarified. Also, 58%
is too much for the region and can cause various misuse, so the group suggests a reduction.
6.1.a 80% of CSOs that have a strategic plan mainly collect funds in line with their strategic
plan – the group believes this excludes grassroots organisations and we should think more
about that.
The group also concluded that we should find a way to present this process to a wider
audience in order to ensure ownership of the process.
With regards to 2.4 on CSOs’ funding from public sources an explanation was given that these are all
sources of the different levels of government combined, while in the last indicator the sources are
divided between the national and local government.
It was concluded that all public sources should be in one basket
A discussion developed on the issue of the percentage of the annual income derived from public
sources, where it was explained that 50% is a statistical average.
Table 3 (red)
 1.1.a Benchmark legislation and national targets – different experiences by countries. The
maximum number of days needed for registration of CSOs should be 21. There was a long
discussion about costs. The maximum cost – 1 EUR. We do not believe you should pay for
exercising your own rights.
 1.1.b Q: How do we measure the gaps in terms of achievements and implementation?
 2.2.a Percentage of individuals and companies or donors that consider tax incentives are
stimulating the CSO sector. What is the perception among those who provide the funding for
CSOs? Q: How can we measure that?
 2.3.a Q: Why set a national target when the benchmark is different?
 2.1.a Q: How do we train them and how do we measure the change within the tax offices? Do
we look into setting up CSOs as contact points with the tax offices? So, it probably should be
more specific as a benchmark.
 2.4.a Public funding – set at least 50%. Proposal for national target as well.
 2.4.b Legal framework for public funding refers only to tenders. Add the words: open calls,
projects and actions by CSOs, so it is more inclusive.
2.4.b add the word “fair share” of public funding among all groups and sectors of CSOs.
The suggestion from the Red group discussion was to put forward a score in each of the standards?
Table 4 (turquoise)
The group talked about the implementation gaps and how difficult it is to come up with a comparable
framework of sub-indicators.
 1.2.a Could be a challenge in some countries to come by this data.
6
Technical Assistance for
Civil Society Organisations
Regional Office








This project is funded
by the European Union.
1.2.b It is more measurable this way, but again, it could be challenging to find data in some
countries.
1.3.a We propose an addition, instead of public funding, change into “grass-roots are given
priority in receiving in-kind support”.
2.2.a Data regarding individual donation is a challenge.
3.1.b Recommendation: include local governments, set up contact points in local
governments and municipalities.
4.1.a Not sure if we have a baseline.
5.1.a Two different indicators, which is good, but for the second one, rather than one
employee we propose at least two employees. Also, we have to find a way to divide the
strategic plan from the HR development - either divide the indicator into two, or divide the
target into two.
5.2.a Subjective information because it only comes from the survey. We propose the
language: CSOs perceive that...
6.1.a We find it a bit controversial, again it should be perception, but we could not discuss
this further as time was up.
Table 5 (blue)
 1.2.a Be careful of change of active work population - official statistics for this category are
not reliable in many countries and are sometimes misused. The system of registration of
unemployed people does not really function. The definition of CSO employment as well –
full time, part time, short-term expert...?
 1.2.b Many countries have no official data on volunteers. Q: For those benchmarks where no
data can be generated and will not be available in the coming years, is it possible to use
estimations from other sources?
 1.3.a “Financial support” should remain in the indicator and not be removed. Minimum sign
of recognition from the state.
 2.2.a The tax administration in most countries does not have this data. Discuss availability of
data – this should be our first goal.
 2.4.a Clarify which methodology should be used to calculate percentages – nominal value or
percentage of the sector regardless of the numbers?
 4.4.a, 5.1.a, 6.1.a, 6.2.a – In all CSO capacities we will talk about “professional CSOs = at
least one employee”. It's not fair to ask for a strategic plan from an organisation that has one
employee. It will give wrong statistics. Two employees should be the minimum.
Table 6 (orange)
Comments from the Orange Table were in line with those of the Blue Table.
 Horizontal proposal for all areas where many countries have no baseline (e.g. corporate
giving, individual giving, and employment in civil society sector), target for the moment
should be to have these statistics. Push the government to make it available.
 Public funding – we are advocating an increase of public funding for CSOs.
 4.2 Proposal – about indicator of public belief. The public needs to recognize the civil
society, not believe. It is easier to measure when you have a public survey so have a public
survey.
 Last impression - We became obsessed with measuring everything, thinking of targets from
the perspective of measuring them, but let us not forget about setting the objectives.
7
Technical Assistance for
Civil Society Organisations
Regional Office
This project is funded
by the European Union.
Table 7 (pink)
 1.1.b Concerns regarding measuring gaps in percentages.
 Problems with definitions – rethink if we are setting the right objective. Does not cover
freedom of expression enough.
 1.2 Number of volunteers vs. number of hours volunteering – maybe we should think about
existing ways volunteering is measured by world indicators – but some concerns about
accuracy for certain countries (from the Blue Table).
 1.3.a If we remove financial support and our only indicator here is registration or nonregistration, then it relates more to freedom of association.
 2.2. The part about donations stimulated by adequate legislation and regulations should be
strengthened. It is important and should be highlighted by the EU in a stronger manner.
The indicator is formulated as 60% for individual donors - pretty high number if we talk
about general population. Why 60%, why “individuals” and not “tax payers”?
 4.1. Other means could be envisaged, e.g. Facebook page. Replace “Web sites” with “online
presence”.
Table 8 (purple)
 1.1.2. The word “assessment” is a problem. Reformulate the indicator to have “legislation
and policy framework is in accordance with the best international standards”.
 1.1.a Terminology used – assembly vs. associations, we should make a difference between
these two. We propose that the word “assembly” be changed into “association”.
 1.2.a Percentage of 6% is too high. In some countries it is not measurable. The 6% target
cannot be reached in 20 years from now, let alone by 2020, so we propose it should be
decreased. Also, is it good to have so many employed people in CSOs? But, in the end we
concluded that it is good because of the economic contribution of the sector and the
sustainability.
 Volunteers – some countries do not even have a law on volunteering, so it is difficult to
measure.
 2.2.a Again the percentage and problem with measuring, especially with individual
donations.
 2.4.a Nothing to add.
 5.2.a What is “adequate argumentation” and how can we measure this?
Table 9 (green)
 1.1.a In Turkey, the third part of the indicator is only applicable for associations but not for
foundations. In Albania, due to the lack of an electronic registry for CSOs, they are instead
registered in the Tirana court so there is no easy way to get the data.
 1.2.a Lack of data in some countries. Proposal: Explicitly indicate “is employed full time”.
 2.2.a No proposal, but it should be modified as there is a lack of data.
 2.4.a Crucial to explain what public sources are.
 3.1.b It should not define only the ministerial level, but local level as well - public institutions
at the central and local level.
 6.2.a Add economic activities of CSOs as possible resources.
8
Technical Assistance for
Civil Society Organisations
Regional Office
This project is funded
by the European Union.
Tina Divjak
On the second day of the Conference, Ms Divjak shared the reviewed proposals that arose in the
working groups from the first day. She said that the earlier discussion revealed that there is still some
confusion as to what a benchmark is and what a target is.
A benchmark is a description of the optimal situation in an ideal world. It is not something that is
expected that the countries reach by 2020, just an ideal situation sometime in the future, while
national targets measure steps towards eventually achieving the benchmarks. The benchmarks will
be changed or lowered only if participants feel that the benchmarks are so high that they are actually
demotivating. Numbers are based on the EU average or optimal situation, so if the numbers were
decreased it would mean they are lower than optimal and therefore, Ms Divjak said she is hesitant to
lower the benchmarks.
Ms Divjak also talked about the main changes in the EU Guidelines adding that:
 Additional explanations will be added as to how we measure some of the targets; and
 “Additional target accurate data is available on the annual level” will be added to the
indicators, for which most countries are lacking data.
Ms. Divjak prepared four questions that the participants should answer through their national group
discussions.
Q1: For which indicators an additional target measuring the availability of data should be
added?
Q2: How to measure the implementation of the basic rights legislation?
Q3: What to measure: number of volunteers OR number of voluntary hours?
Q4: Should we measure all CSOs in these indicators or only the professional ones?
Session 2 – Progress Report inputs: Defining the framework for the country Progress
Report 2015 in relation to the findings for 2015 against the EU Guidelines
The objective of Session two was to give:
- Clear guidelines in relation to the required structure and content of the inputs for the national
Progress Report;
- Identification of the priority indicator per country – those that lack progress and those that
need the greatest attention; and
- Identification of the concrete actions government can make in the upcoming year at the
regional and national level in order to ensure progress along the set priorities.
Session opening
Three panellists gave brief presentations focusing on the Progress Report inputs and in the case of
the last speaker representing the Government, his presentation was focused on concrete actions that
governments can make in the future. The panellists were:
9
Technical Assistance for
Civil Society Organisations
Regional Office



This project is funded
by the European Union.
Nicola Bertolini, Head of Sector, DG NEAR Western Balkans Regional Cooperation and
Programmes Unit
Gaby Hagmuller, Team Leader, Social Development, EU Office in Kosovo / EU Special
Representative
Goran Kučera, Senior Advisor for Civil Society, Ministry of Justice of Bosnia and
Herzegovina (BiH)
Nicola Bertolini’s presentation focused on the Progress Report (PR) and DG NEAR’s expectations
with regards to the paragraph on the Civil Society that will be included in the PR.
The PR is a vital document that makes a picture of the development of a society towards the
completion of the acquis and political criteria as well. But it is just one of the moments in which the
Commission talks to the governments, the governments talk to the civil society, etc. This provided
input will not be only for the PR, but also for any policy dialogue between the Commission and the
governments and will be used for briefings for all of the missions that should go to the seven
countries.
The PR should be adopted on October 14th. The enlargement package will include seven PRs, one for
each country, and the Enlargement Strategy, which summarizes and gives a policy strategy for the
whole region. This year, DG NEAR will provide greater focus in order to strengthen the reporting
methodology. There is an introduction of comparability criteria, incentives, but it is also important to
mention the credibility of what is written. It is important to mention the addition of measuring the
impact of IPA assistance. The idea is that when writing the CSOs should say EU funds rather than
“IPA”, so that it can be understood by a wider audience as well. The PR should combine assistance
and policy. In addition, it is important to have a clear and concise language that the citizens can
understand. It was also mentioned that there is a new methodology related to the reporting in the PR
that will only be piloted in a few chapters (rule of law, freedom of expression, economic criteria, and
public administration reform) but not civil society. In the whole report there should be a stronger
concept of readiness instead of progress - talk about facts, readiness. The report should focus on facts
and not intentions.
The length of the PR should not exceed 50 pages, so the size of the input from the civil society
should be around half a page. The intention is to have only one consultation per chapter involving the
Delegation and people from Brussels, during May and June at the country level. Another novelty of
the PR is the addition of key indicators for the enlargement countries, annexed not to the PR but to
the Enlargement Strategy. One of the visionary ideas is to include a few priority indicators from the
EU guidelines as an annex to the Enlargement Strategy.
In terms of the process, the inputs for the PR will be prepared by the EU delegations. The product at
the end of the Conference’s Session two will go to the EU Delegations and the Delegations can still
amend it. The Delegations will then send the inputs to Brussels on May 19. The country units in
Brussels will evaluate the full report based on the input from the Delegation. Following the new
methodology, the text should always start with positive developments over the reporting period.
September 1, 2015 is the cut-off date. The Civil Society part is under the political criteria - Chapter
2, in which there are different political criteria: democracy, public administration reform, rule of law,
human rights and minorities, regional issues and international obligations. So, there are five subchapters and Civil Society is in the Democracy sub-chapter. The whole political criteria chapter will
10
Technical Assistance for
Civil Society Organisations
Regional Office
This project is funded
by the European Union.
have a maximum of 14 pages, 16 pages for Turkey, and 17 pages for Bosnia and Herzegovina and
Kosovo.
For the work in the national teams after the opening panel for Session two it was suggested that the
input deriving from the national teams should not be longer than one page, it should use short and
focused sentences, preceded by a bullet point. There will be three sections: 1) section is legislation,
in which for each of the sub-areas of the EU Guidelines related to the legislation the participants
should find positive developments, negative developments and shortcomings; 2) section is
institutional framework, and again, positive, negative and shortcomings; 3) and other points that
participants would regard as relevant. It was highlighted to use facts that are verifiable and certain.
As an annex to the Enlargement Strategy, priority indicators will be indices per country. By the end
of today, the participants should define which indicators are the most relevant with acceptable
measurement. So, three to four indicators could land into the Annex of the Enlargement Strategy.
Finally, based on the good work that the participants are doing, there are greater chances to make a
strong proposal to make this addition to the Enlargement Strategy possible.
Gaby Hagmuller shared the experiences from the EU Office in Kosovo. Her presentation gave a
snapshot of the timeline saying that although May 19 is a deadline for political criteria, for some
chapters it is even May 5 to submit input to the Delegations.
It was emphasized that this is not a once-off opportunity for CSOs to give input, because for the first
part of any year, there are Stabilisation and Association Process Dialogue (SAPD) meetings, which
are organised by sector and prior to the meeting with the government, the EUD always meets with
CSOs from that sector. This increases the awareness and automatism on the side of the Delegation to
know that these are the resources to draw from. Plenary meetings with civil society also give a very
good opportunity to have this much regulated change. And then the PR is only a culmination of the
process taking place throughout the year.
The EUD sends its input to Headquarters (HQ) in Brussels and gets feedback, but it also organises a
meeting with CSOs to go through the input again in June and between June and September have the
possibility to update.
The EUD gives deadlines to its colleagues in the civil society to get their input, but that does not
mean that there is not a constant openness to receive updates. The EUD receives different formats of
inputs, in order to streamline the format of inputs, the EUD sends to CSOs a comparison table – on
the one side is the PR from last year divided into different chapters with space for inputs and to
report on progress on the other side. The idea behind this is to give an idea of the structure, the space
and the language that is used for the PR.
The limited time, opportunities and physical space to cover all the issues in the PR could be assessed
as rather frustrating for both the EUD and civil society. For example, the Kosovo Open Society
Foundation organised consultations per thematic area and engaged experts from CSOs per thematic
area to publish a policy brief. That was very useful, because it was literally a publication that you
could go back to. So for the EUD, it would be the best case scenario to receive inputs from CSOs
that have already been consolidated on behalf of other organisations, and it also puts higher pressure
on the EUD when it comes from a group of 10 or 15 organisations.
Another challenge, as much for the PR as for the consultations for SAPD, is the language. The PR is
translated into other languages after its publication, but the consultation is conducted in English,
11
Technical Assistance for
Civil Society Organisations
Regional Office
This project is funded
by the European Union.
even with translation that is also a challenge. So, here again it would be good if CSOs could channel
the input from smaller organisations and make sure they are given a voice.
Regarding feedback, the EUDs give feedback when they present the PR. After the publication, i.e.
after the adoption, there is also a meeting with CSOs to “defend” the PR, and this is the opportunity
for CSOs to ask why some things were not taken into account.
Since the Civil Society chapter is not even half a page and it somehow needs to reflect the entire
enabling environment of the Guidelines and of the monitoring framework, in the future there could
be a better link between the PR and the Guidelines that would also substantiate why this chapter
needs to be a little bit bigger, and that could help to go into more detail. The suggestion was to
perhaps turn the elements of the monitoring of the EU Guidelines into some form of a checklist that
could be annexed to the Enlargement package.
In addition, it was suggested to obtain more precise instructions from Brussels to the EUDs in the
future, which would enable better comparability among the countries, where if incentives are also
introduced, there will also be almost a competition between the different countries and a strong
emphasis on the readiness for membership. As it was mentioned, this will already be applied to some
chapters for the 2015 PR and the EUDs received a mock chapter from Brussels which could be
regarded as the methodology that will be applied to all chapters in the future. It starts with a
summary, which is an assessment of readiness, and then priorities are mentioned. This will be a
useful tool for CSOs when they give input to the EUDs to stress the top three priorities that should
really be emphasised in the PR. It would be good if in the future when the EUDs receive from civil
society their inputs that they are in accordance to the previously mentioned checklists.
Lastly, a few recommendations from the Delegation's perspective were presented: CSOs should use
every single opportunity for advocacy and not see the PR as a once-off opportunity. Throughout the
year, there are many opportunities to showcase expertise and establish a relation with the Delegation
that creates automatism in the drafters to request and get a specific input. Another recommendation is
to join forces and combine and consolidate inputs as much as possible.
Goran Kučera reflected that it has been almost a year since the conference in Tirana when the EU
Guidelines and baseline reports were officially presented. The Ministry of Justice of Bosnia and
Herzegovina considered the EU Guidelines and baseline report as a very important issue, so Mr
Kucera briefly informed the participants about certain developments and challenges regarding the
implementation of the EU Guidelines. Significant development has been achieved regarding the
Agreement between the Council of Ministers (CoM) and NGO sector, which was signed in 2007, but
unfortunately was not implemented in a good way. In 2014, the Council of Ministers founded a
working group for the revision of the existing Agreement. Until today, the group has had three
meetings with the technical support of the Capacity Building of Government Institutions (CBGI)
project funded by the EU. A majority of the revised text has been prepared and the group still needs
to have one to two meetings and then the revised text can be sent to the public consultation process
with civil society. The very important part of this revised text is the institutional mechanisms for the
development of civil society. It is foreseen to establish a council for civil society development within
the Council of Ministers, to create a Council of Ministers Guideline for civil society, and finally to
strengthen the role of the Department for Civil Society within the Ministry of Justice as a contact
point for the civil society within the Council of Ministers.
12
Technical Assistance for
Civil Society Organisations
Regional Office
This project is funded
by the European Union.
Second, significant development has been achieved in the field of public consultations. Bosnia and
Herzegovina was the first country in the region to adopt the rules of public consultation in 2006, but
unfortunately they have only partially implemented it. Also, in cooperation with the CBGI project,
they started a creation of a web application “e-Participation”, which has a goal to enable the active
involvement of the civil society in making laws, by-laws, strategic and other documents. It would
also enable the civil society to monitor the work of the government and its institutions in BiH. The
web platform is already built in a technical sense, but it is in the testing phase, and they still need to
transfer the ownership to the Council of Ministers from the CBGI project. In the same sense, in 2014
the Ministry of Justice proposed amendments to the rules of public consultations to the Council of
Ministers, which were adopted in September 2014 and are directly related to this web platform. So
with the new amendments, the Council of Ministers will refuse to place legislation on its agenda
when its institution fails to provide evidence in the form of a statement that the public consultations
were conducted.
Also, BiH made a significant step forward in the field of transparency. BiH has been admitted as the
65th member of the multilateral initiative Open Government Partnership in September 2014. It is now
preparing the mechanisms for the creation of an action plan regarding the rules of Open Government
Partnership. A few weeks ago, the Ministry of Justice BiH started with the preparatory activities
regarding the creation of a framework law on volunteering on the state level, which has to be sent to
the Council of Ministers by the end of this year.
They are still facing some challenges on how to implement certain parts of the EU Guidelines,
especially how to overcome problems in fund distribution and establishing adequate mechanisms of
funding CSOs. Around 55 million euros are allocated for CSOs in BiH each year from all levels of
government. Still there is no success in determining precise data on the overall number of registered
CSOs, and also in having a single registry. Based on a detailed analysis which was conducted in
2009, there are 12,000 CSOs in BiH. But the situation today is different and according to the last
unofficial data, there are 21,000 registered organisations in BiH and new data research has to be done
in order to determine the exact number of registered organisations. There are some indications about
the planned activities of the EUD in BiH in relation to launching a competitive call for the mapping
of CSOs in BiH with special reference to the number of registered organisations, their structure,
whether they are active or inactive, field of interest, etc., so this will be very significant for BiH.
With respect to what the governments can do regarding the EU Guidelines, especially in regards to
ownership, it was suggested as a first step that each government should consider is a formal
recognition of the EU Guidelines as a tool for moving forward in improving the cooperation between
the governments and CSOs. The Ministry of Justice BiH will consider the option of sending the
information on the EU Guidelines and their importance for civil society development to the Council
of Ministers in order to formally get support for their implementation, monitoring and evaluation.
Lastly, Mr Kucera expressed how proud he was of the TACSO Regional and especially TACSO BiH
Office and how they are handling the process regarding the EU Guidelines. In October 2014,
TACSO BiH held a two-day Local Advisory Group workshop “Broaden forum for dialogue”, and
the results were that they identified all relevant stakeholders from the government institutional levels,
CSOs and individuals for the indicators and benchmarks of the EU Guidelines. Last week, a TACSO
preparatory meeting for this conference was held where it was agreed to continue with the process
and to organise a kick-off event in September 2015, where all identified government institutions,
organisations and individuals will be invited. The main purpose of the workshop will be to clearly
13
Technical Assistance for
Civil Society Organisations
Regional Office
This project is funded
by the European Union.
determine stakeholders for each objective and indicator and clearly identify what can be realistically
achieved in the next two years with regards to the EU Guidelines and country baseline.
After the opening panel, the participants were asked to work in their national teams with the
objective to:
• Reflect on the suggested modifications of the indicators/benchmarks and targets in relation to
the outputs from the national consultations, including additional questions to be answered as
suggested by Ms. Divjak;
• Define key inputs for the Progress Reports (key items reflecting progress and challenges
since the last Progress Report), in accordance to the instructions given by Mr. Bertolini;
• Identify priority indicators for a country; and
• Define the possible role of the relevant government representatives at the national and
regional level.
14
Technical Assistance for
Civil Society Organisations
Regional Office
This project is funded
by the European Union.
National Working Group Presentations
Albania
With regards to the benchmarks and targets, the comments are:
1.1.a Agree with the proposed changes.
1.1.b How to measure the implementation of the basis of the right legislation? - Through surveys
with CSOs and research on the structures/mechanisms established at the state level.
1.2.b Adoption of a law on voluntarism. Measure number of volunteers, establish a database of
existing volunteers.
1.3.a Agree with the proposal not to delete “receive financial support”
2.2.a Target on availability of data needs to be added
Agree with the division of the benchmark in two separate benchmarks.
Measure the first benchmark: 1) 60% of corporations donate to CSOs (not to be changed)
3.1.b Agree with the changes
4.1.a Agree with the changes
4.4.a 5.1a 6.1.a – We should measure only CSOs with at least two employees, but not include
“professional” in the benchmark, it creates confusion.
5.1.a Agree with the changes
Priority indicators for Albania
 Create electronic register of CSOs, providing official data on the number of registered CSOs
and decentralisation of registration of CSOs.
 Adoption of a legal framework regulating the issues of Voluntarism (special Law on
Voluntarism).
 Establishment of a special structure in the tax administration dealing with the fiscal issues of
CSOs, including training of tax inspectors dealing with CSOs and CSOs on tax issues;
adoption of financial (including tax) rules that are reasonable, clear and proportionate to
CSOs’ turnover.
 Increased public funds for CSOs, especially at the local level of government, increased
transparency and accountability of public bodies that provide funds for CSOs at the central
and local level of governance.
 Increased transparency and accountability of CSOs by making their financial accounts and
annual reports publicly available.
Key inputs for the PR – improvements
 Increased participation of CSOs in decision making and policy making processes and a more
open, collaborative and transparent approach by state institutions.
 Legal situation
◦ Adoption of the resolution “For the recognition and strengthening the role of civil society
in the process of democratic development of the country”
◦ Adoption of the Law on Value-Added Tax (VAT) from 2014 and Decision of the Council
of Ministers of 2014 on the economic activity of CSOs.
◦ Adoption of the Manual on Public Participation in the Decision Making Process of the
Parliament.
◦ Adoption of the Law on Public Notification and Consultations, adoption of the Law on
15
Technical Assistance for
Civil Society Organisations
Regional Office

This project is funded
by the European Union.
Information, amended in 2014.
Institutional Framework
◦ Establishment of the National Council for European Integration.
◦ Preparation of the Draft law on the Establishment and Functioning of the National
Council for Civil Society Development.
Key inputs for the PR - Challenges
 Lack of available data on the number and economic value of CSOs.
 Lack of public funding on the national and local level.
 Taxation. Financial reporting, tax rules.
 Lack of structures/mechanisms at the central and local level of governance to support civil
society development in the country.
 Preparation and adoption of the National Strategy for Cooperation between CSOs and the
Government.
 Legislative and Policy Reform
◦ Law on Voluntarism
◦ Law on Social Contracting/Procurement
◦ Law on Social Enterprises
◦ Law on Public Funding for CSOs
Role of the Government
On the national level:
 Drafting and adoption of the new legal framework for civil society development in the
country.
 Increased percentage of public funding at the national and local level for CSOs.
 Continuous monitoring and strengthening of the process of the implementation of laws for
CSOs’ development.
On the regional level:
 Facilitate exchange of experiences between institutions supporting civil society in the region.
Q: Law on information – is this Law on access to information?
- Yes. There is a new law that is considered to have a positive effect on CSO development.
16
Technical Assistance for
Civil Society Organisations
Regional Office
This project is funded
by the European Union.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
With regards to the benchmarks and targets, the comments are: Found two new indicators to be
added.
 Data resources – 1.2.a we should add official statistical data, tax department data and CSOs’
data.
 1.2.b Add NGOs as source of information for informal volunteers. Tax debt statistics for
registered volunteers.
 2.2.a NGOs should provide information on financial and in-kind contributions from corporate
and individual support
BiH baseline should be related to the BiH constitution.
Q3 answer: Measure both volunteers and hours. Monitor the changes in the law which ensure an
enabling environment for voluntarism. Data about registered volunteers to be available.
Q4 answer: We propose to use active NGOs, which submit their financial reports to tax departments.
Suggestion – at the end, add a glossary with a clear explanation given in the Results Framework –
what is meant by grassroots, what is an NGO, etc. to avoid any misunderstandings.
Define the state as something that covers all administrative levels.
Proposal for new indicators:
 3.1.b Monitoring the activity of local authorities involves citizens in the decision making
process.
For regional level two additional indicators were proposed:
 4.5 No. of CSOs which submit financial reports to tax administration could be valuable
information.
 3.1.b Measure quality and quantity contributions of CSOs in the EU integration process.
Progress Report - Progress
 3.1.b WG established for revision of Agreement signed with NGOs in 2007.
 3.1.b E-platform for public consultations of BiH Council of Ministers with citizens.
 2.4.b The Ministry of Finance RS adopted the Initial Guidance/Methodology of Grant
management which obligatory for all ministries in the RS.
 1.1.a Shortcomings: Guidance for Enabling Environment/Strategy for CS.
 1.1.b Joint registry of CSOs.
 1.2.c Initiatives for improving the legislative framework related to voluntarism, business
incentives both corporate and individual tax payers.
 3.1.c Participation of Civil Society in IPA 2015programming.
Progress Report – Challenges
Civil Society capacity as a cross-cutting issue:
 1.2.b Adoption of the Framework of the Voluntarism Law on the state level.
 3.1.b Adoption of the Guidance from the CoM re. Civil Society Development.
 3.1.b Civil Society Council
17
Technical Assistance for
Civil Society Organisations
Regional Office

This project is funded
by the European Union.
3.1.b Contact point for Civil Society in CoM
Kosovo
With regards to the benchmarks and targets the comments are: Q1
1.2.a Having data on employment by civil society should be an indicator by itself.
1.2.b Volunteering (Q3) - Stick to number of volunteers, it should be the only indicator.
2.4.a Having data on public funds for civil society should be an indicator by itself.
3.1.a Having an indicator on laws/bylaws that are consulted and information is provided.
Q2




Q4


Appendix 1 of the EU Guidelines shall also include the relevant “practice indicators” from
the BCSDN Monitoring Matrix, while the process of their assessment shall be inclusive and
participatory.
The assessment should be an inclusive process, avoiding individual (organisation)
assessments.
Availability of state data on civil society should be a precondition for the process.
“Professional CSOs = with at least two employees” to be added to 4.4.a and 5.1.a, but not to
6.1.a (it has its own criteria of “having strategic plans”).
4.4.a and 5.1.a – Professional CSO qualifications should only be subject to the number of
employees – CSOs with two or more employees.
6.1.a Already has the criteria set within the indicator “Organisations who have a strategic
plan”
Changes proposed by Tina
 2.4.a Add “annual” for measuring increase.
 3.1.b Add point five in the footnote for Contact Points: the existence of a contact point is not
used as an excuse by other civil servants/units not to cooperate with CSOs in specific issues
within their scope of work.
 5.2.a and 6.1.a – Should only measure perceptions. Self-perception vs. sector perception (i.e.
based on the experience with the Kosovar Civil Society Index)
Progress Report – Progress
 Functioning of the implementation bodies for the implementation of the Strategy, civil
society representatives in the Council have been selected through an open and democratic
procedure.
 The definition of the Minimum Standards for public consultation is in the process (to be
adopted by the government).
 The amendment of the Anti-terrorism Law has been initiated and civil society has been
consulted at the initial/concept-document phase.
 The tax reliefs for individual and corporate giving have been increased from five% to 10%
(adopted from the Government, waiting for Assembly).
 The meetings of the Presidency of the Assembly have been opened to civil society.
Progress Report – Challenges
 No concrete results have derived from the Partnership Declaration signed by the Assembly of
18
Technical Assistance for
Civil Society Organisations
Regional Office





This project is funded
by the European Union.
Kosovo in April 2014 (in exception to the opening of the Presidency meetings).
Restrictive provisions of the Anti-terrorism Law are still applicable and remain a cause for
concern for civil society.
Legislation allowing the “suspension of NGOs by an administrative body” has been
introduced and led to the suspension of 14 NGOs. This is in contradiction with the primary
legislation and freedom of association.
Human and financial resources for the implementation of the Strategy remain insufficient.
Public funding for civil society is still provided in a non-transparent and un-regulated
manner.
Consultations between civil society and the Kosovo institutions continue to be ad hoc and
unsatisfactory. Civil society involvement, if requested at all, comes only at the end of the
legislative process rather than at its beginning. Civil society does not systematically receive
feedback on its recommendations.
Progress Report – TACSO’s Role
 Facilitation of the consultation process with civil society.
Government Actions on the National Level
 Address the challenges.
 Build systems to provide relevant data for civil society development.
Government Actions on the Regional Level
 Reactivate the “forum on government's civil society offices”.
Priority Indicators
 Availability of official data for all indicators (systems in place to gather, process, publish
data).
19
Technical Assistance for
Civil Society Organisations
Regional Office
This project is funded
by the European Union.
Macedonia














With regards to the benchmarks and targets, the comments are: 1.1. a. and b. The new
formulation is good, gaps in targets to be analysed not just as % (the quantity) but also as the
quality.
Relevant and official source of information to be identified (Central Registry of the Republic
of Macedonia (CRM) and Ministry of Internal Affairs (MoI))
1.3.a. To add benchmark related to the number of identified gaps in the implementation.
2.2.a There is no unified EU tax system, thus there is a need for a more general benchmark
(see country specific slide).
2.2.a. Ok with the new proposal for corporate and individual giving and could be measurable
in Macedonia.
2.4.a. Ok with new proposal. Need for baseline from national and comparative sources.
Consultation should take place.
3.1.b Ok
4.1.a. Ok
4.4.a. Not for all CSOs, just for professional organisations. To define several sub-questions
in the questionnaire (IPSOS). To use additional information from other donors (sources).
5.1.a. To refer just to professional CSOs (with at least two employees).
To add 5.1.b. as new indicator: Share of CSOs that have activities in line with their mission
and vision. But additional qualitative analysis of the missions and activities is needed.
5.2.a. General comments: It is very important how the questions will be formulated. A smaller
group on the country level should be consulted for the questions. A new indicator to be
added: Number of organisations that produce research (think tank). The result and indicator
are not well connected. Proposal for changing the result: CSOs….to fulfil their advocacy
activities. New result to be introduced in terms of interaction and involvement of CSOs with
other stakeholders (especially policy making institutions).
6.1.a. The concern is whether this result needed. It tells us information for the efficiency of
the organisations, not of their sustainability.
6.2.a. Ok
Technical Improvements for the Results Framework
 1.2.a. Need for a breakdown of the types of employment: engaged on a regular basis and
engaged on an honoraria basis.
 1.2.b. Will measure both: number of volunteers and number of hours (based on population
survey).
 4.2.a. To define the country target (in terms of decreasing). Also to consult other available
surveys (beside IPSOS). Additionally, having in mind the other sources, will define the
country target.
Progress Report – Progress
 Increased number of staff in the CSO Unit in the Government (since March 1) from two to
five.
 VAT procedure simplified (July, 2014).
 Online consultation for two decisions (Council and Public Funding).
20
Technical Assistance for
Civil Society Organisations
Regional Office
This project is funded
by the European Union.
Progress Report – Challenges
 Implementation of the Strategy (timeline vs….).
 Public funding: not sufficient amount of funds, lack of institutional support, lack of cofinancing, no transparent procedure, missing legally binding document.
 Tax incentives for CSOs are complex and inconsistent.
 The challenge is the establishment of the Council. The second version of the draft decision
consulted with (90) CSOs, it does not secure the representation and legitimacy of CSO
representatives.
 De-committed 2.2 m EUR raised among CSOs’ negative affection for their sustainability.
 Freedom of assembly – new regulation rubber bullets.
Priority Indicators
 2.2.a Quality and applicability of the legal framework for individual and corporate giving.
 3.1.b Quality of the structures and mechanisms in place for dialogue and cooperation between
the CSOs and public institutions.
 1.1.b Progress with the adoption and implementation of relevant legislation.
 4.2.b Quality of the state funding framework for the CSOs.
21
Technical Assistance for
Civil Society Organisations
Regional Office
This project is funded
by the European Union.
Montenegro
With regards to the benchmarks and targets the comments are: Q1. 1.2 a; 1.2 b, 2.2 a;
Creation of official track record in relation to all three issues that will enable the baseline
 Reformulation of the target 2.4 a: increase public funding support for XX %
 Reformulation of the target 6.2 a: sources of funding are grouped as follows: public funding:
government, local funding.
Q2. Official track record, reports
Q3. Both
Q4. Only CSOs with at least two employees - to remove professional
First dilemma: Definition of CSOs?
The group thinks that the Guidelines should refer to organisations founded under the law that
regulates the registration of CSOs in the respective countries. No further improvements on the
Results Framework.
Progress Report – Progress
1. Continuous involvement of CSOs in the working groups for drafting public policies.
2. Continuous involvement of CSO representatives in working groups for negotiation chapters
and improvements in the cooperation within the European integration process in general.
3. Council for the development of NGOs operates regularly without obstructions.
4. The new Law on Social and Children Care prescribes that NGOs can be official service
providers.
Progress Report – Challenges
1. Lack of official records about NGOs- income, employees, volunteers, corporate and
individual giving.
2. Public funding support to CSOs’ projects and programmes; lack of implementation of the
Law on NGOs in the area of state financial support; Violations of the Laws on games of
chance that regulate the only current source of funding- permanent decreasing of the amount
allocated to CSOs’ projects, violations of procedures;
3. Consultation with CSOs in the creation of public policies and public discussion processes;
relevant legislation is not adequately implemented.
4. Cooperation between local self-governments and CSOs; lack of implementation of the
procedures for the cooperation and consultation of CSOs on the local level; A big part of
funding from local self-governments goes beyond official procedures, without transparency
and known criteria.
5. Volunteering : Recently adopted Law on Volunteer Work bureaucratizes - threatens
volunteering practices as labour related procedures
Progress Report – TACSO’s Role
 Organise national meeting for CSOs in the preparation phase of the Progress Report.
Government Actions on the National Level
Government and relevant ministries should provide updated information on the enabling
22
Technical Assistance for
Civil Society Organisations
Regional Office
This project is funded
by the European Union.
environment for CSOs in each area covered by the Guidelines.
Priority Indicators
 1.2.a
 1.2.b
 2.4.a
 3.1.a
23
Technical Assistance for
Civil Society Organisations
Regional Office
This project is funded
by the European Union.
Serbia














With regards to the benchmarks and targets, the comments are: National benchmark for
independent bodies (freedom of assembly – district courts) cases and Human Rights Court –
number of cases, recommendations that are implemented, traffic lights (1.1.a) Q2
Number of employees in CSO (permanent and part-time), all active work population (all
employees, regardless of how they are engaged) (1.2.a)
Number of volunteers and volunteer hours – tracking both (1.2.b) Statistics on Income and
Living Conditions (EU-SILC) research and polls (IPSOS); Q3
Accepted 1.3.a
2.2.a - agree with additional benchmark, the old ones should stay
Accepted 2.4.a
Accepted 3.1.b, local, regional (provincial, cantonal, etc.), governmental level should be
defined (not ministerial), target accepted
Accepted 4.1.a
Accepted 4.2.a
4.4.a, 5.1a and 6.1.a Accepted - organisations with two employees (phrase professional
should be excluded), share of two employees organisations among total number should be
noted Q4
5.2.a Not accepted, we cannot get any information by only measuring perception
6.1.a Accepted
6.2.a Accepted
Q2 - Volunteering evidence – Benchmark 1.2. Evidence on corporative and individual giving.
Progress Report – Progress
Legal Framework
1. Continuous comparative monitoring and policy framework is in place regarding the exercise
of the rights of freedom, expression and association.
2. The registration process is voluntary, with clear and simple and decentralized procedures and
possibilities for CSOs to register only in a few days and online. Registration of grassroots is
not mandatory.
3. The bylaw on annual financial reports was introduced in line with the Law on Accounting.
Institutional framework
1. The Office remains the main mechanism for developing the dialogue among CSOs and the
government.
2. The Office has implemented training sessions and developed for local self-governments a
Decree on Transparent Funding and Guidelines on the inclusion of CSOs in the decision
making processes in order to raise capacities of the institutional framework on the local level.
3. The mechanism, helped by the programme budgeting implementation, for the creation of a
Calendar of open calls for state funding is created and it has been made public on the Office
for Cooperation with CSOs Web site in order to increase the transparency of public funding.
Progress Report – Challenges
Legal framework challenges:
1. Based on the Ombudsman reports, the media in Serbia are not free and not in line with earlier
achieved standards.
24
Technical Assistance for
Civil Society Organisations
Regional Office
This project is funded
by the European Union.
2. Law on assembly was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional court. A new Law
should be drafted and adopted as soon as possible in a fully transparent manner.
3. A draft Law on Registering and Data Processing in the area of internal affairs is not in line
with data protection and freedom of association.
4. The legal framework regarding transparent state finding is still not implemented; the status of
public interest is still not clearly defined; and the tax system is not favourable for CSOs.
5. The Law on volunteering is not stimulating for volunteering and the Law on Social Protection
is not fully implemented regarding CSO social provisions.
Institutional framework
Challenges:
1. There is no adequate mechanism for the inclusion of CSOs in the decision making processes.
The Guidelines are not obligatory and the results of its implementation remain to be seen.
2. The Head of the Office for Cooperation for Civil Society remains to be appointed through an
open call.
3. The state institutions and regulatory bodies are not reacting on the breach of existing rules
and procedures, especially for the Decree on Transparent Funding.
4. Inconsistent implementation of recommendations of Independent institutions regarding
transparency and good governance.
5. Negative comments of state officials regarding civil society undermine civil society and basic
freedoms.
Progress Report – TACSO’s Role
 TACSO together with the Resource Centre should provide constant channel among civil
society and EUD
Government Actions on the National Level
 The Government should invest more efforts in the full implementation of the existing
legislation and creation of new legislation.
Government Actions on the Regional Level
 Efforts to cooperate and exchange good practices.
Priority Indicators
 1.1.a, 1.1.b Basic freedoms
 2.4.a, 2.4.b Public funding
 3.1.a, 3.1.b Mechanism of cooperation
25
Technical Assistance for
Civil Society Organisations
Regional Office
This project is funded
by the European Union.
Turkey
With regards to the benchmarks and targets the comments are:
 6.1.a. and 6.2.a can be merged to refer directly to “__% of CSOs assess that they have
ensured their financial viability” and not refer to diversity of funding resources for all CSOs
 Number of volunteers and number of volunteer hours ( survey) both included
 4.4.a. and 5.1.a. For professional CSOs with two employees.
 Include “producing data” as target for: 2.2.a., 2.4.a., 3.1.a., 3.1.b., 6.1.a.-b
Results Framework
 Need to work on 1.1.b. with a daylong workshop to formulate national targets with reference
to new standards.
Progress Report – Progress
Enabling Environment:
 Positive development: Priority Transformation Programmes of the development plan includes
CS related improvements.
 Negative development: Reported cases of CSOs’ closure, problems based on freedom of
association, enabling environment.
 “Internal security package” – discrepancies with freedom of assembly and expression,
international standards.
 Problems with online freedom, social media limitations.
 CSO fined for illicit employment for working with volunteers.
Institutional Framework:
 Positive: data production and sharing by government Institution on civil society and
development plans have targets for the inclusion of participation of CSOs at the local level
decision-making; public funds for CSOs increased.
 Negative: CSO-government dialogue and consultation in policy making has to improve.
 Public funds for CSOs are not transparent enough and have to improve.
Progress Report – Challenges
 Strong political will at the decision making level is needed for improvement.
Progress Report – TACSO’s Role
 Follow up to the Working group workshop in short period for 1.1.b. Targets and way
forward.
Government Actions on the National Level
 EU Ministry representatives will advocate within the Ministry (Political Affairs) to adapt EU
Guidelines.
 EU Ministry will seek to adopt measures for CSOs (for better integration of CSOs to IPA
civil society sub-sector support).
 EU Guidelines integrated in IPA programming.
 Data production, sharing for EU guidelines monitoring from Ministry of Finance (MoF),
26
Technical Assistance for
Civil Society Organisations
Regional Office


This project is funded
by the European Union.
DGoF, MoDev
MoDev will monitor Civil Society related actions in the priority transformation plans.
Need for strong, higher political commitment.
Government Actions on the Regional Level
 EU ROLE: Openly referring to EU Guidelines in the Progress Reports.
Priority Indicators
 1.1 (1.1.a and 1.1.b) – Legal framework and its implementation
 1.2 Volunteering and employment
 2.2 Donations are stimulated with adequate legislation and regulation
 2.3 Financial benefits
 2.4 Government support/funding
 3.1 Inclusion of CSOs in decision making
 6.1.a & 6.1.b Financial viability of CSOs
The closing of some CSOs indicates that there are still problems with the freedom of association.
After hearing presentations from national working groups, comments were adopted, and suggestions
for final modifications of targets and benchmarks of the Guidelines were presented by Ms. Divjak in
her presentation (annex F).
27
Technical Assistance for
Civil Society Organisations
Regional Office
This project is funded
by the European Union.
Session 3 – Monitoring: Review of the needed elements for the establishment of a
monitoring system
The presentation highlighted the following points:
- Have the RCs been able to estimate the costs of the monitoring of the EU Guidelines? What
is the estimated cost?
- Are the responsibilities for monitoring clearly defined per country and per institution?
- What they see as the most challenging/most costly part?
- If the RCs are to run this exercise in the future, what kind of implications does it have in
terms of their need for the human resources and internal expertise?
- Those RCs that are not involved in providing some of the inputs for the first two components
of the EU Guidelines how do they see the way forward?
- Suggested additional layer of the monitoring methodology, how can this be done?
Moderated by Taulant Hoxha, Programme Director Civil Society Development, KCS Foundation
The Panel:
Maja Stojanovic, Civic Initiatives, Serbia
Amra Seleskovic, VESTA, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Emina Nuredinoska, MCIC, Macedonia
Tezcan Eralp Abay, STGM, Turkey
Fidan Hallaqi, KCSF, Kosovo
Ana Novakovic, CRNVO, Montenegro
One of the options for monitoring the EU Guidelines that was discussed in the few past months was
that the Resource Centres supported by TACSO in each of the counties will have the task to monitor
the entire set of indicators at the country levels. The implications of this exercise were considered in
terms of the additional resource and financial implications, as well as what this monitoring entitles.
In Serbia, the RC organisation is part of the BCSDN network, which is already monitoring a big part
of the Guidelines, i.e. everything related to enabling environment. However, for the part of the
CSOs’ capacities, a similar research was outsourced due to the large number of CSOs in Serbia.
Maja Stojanovic estimated that 19,000 EUR can be used for outsourcing, but with regards to the
enabling environment part of the EU Guidelines, some funds available and fundraising will be done
through the years, but about 10-15,000 EUR is needed on an annual level.
The financial and human resources are directly linked and the experience CRNVO has had with
reporting on the matrix for the enabling environment for civil society is in a way an advantage for
many of the RCs, because they have experienced the whole process which has shown that several
people need to be devoted 24h/day for this research, so it has direct financial implications. Speaking
of the potential role of the RC in the future in the monitoring of the EU Guidelines, the existing
budget is not enough for the role of the RC in monitoring all three parts of the EU Guidelines. The
budget estimate should be similar in all countries, because it includes the analytical approach and
analysis of the first two components of the Guidelines and the third, which will include a public
survey which also requires serious funds to be invested in this task.
28
Technical Assistance for
Civil Society Organisations
Regional Office
This project is funded
by the European Union.
It was stated, however, that expenses will depend on the methodology that will be used, which could
go up to 30-40,000 EUR. If the sources are based only on the secondary data, such as online
questionnaires, for the Guidelines then the estimate is that two fully employed people will be needed.
But, if a participative way of preparing information for the Guidelines is envisioned, more methods
will be needed, such as focus groups, events for checking the data, population surveys, etc., thus
more funds will be needed as well.
The two RCs that are not part of the monitoring matrix are Bosnia and Herzegovina and Turkey, but
this is not seen as a major obstacle by these two RCs.
With regards to the methodology, the common understanding was that the same or very similar
methodology should be used for all countries, with the main goal to gather information that is
reliable and correct within the countries.
However, two items were differentiated – the methodology of the monitoring and the methodology
of the survey. The proposal from Turkey was to have the same methodology for monitoring of the
Guidelines, but not necessarily for the survey. The indicators make the results comparable. The
methodology creates reliable data, but the national context is different. Slightly modified
questionnaires could be used according to specific national contexts, but they should ask for the same
result – indicators.
The discussion picked up on the general perception regarding the governments and that they should
do more to make the data available, and if in the future the pool of institutions to be engaged in the
monitoring matrix should formally include the government institutions?
The panellists agreed as this will also be a way of giving part of the ownership to the governments.
However, reservations were voiced confirming that state institutions should be involved in the
process and should be informed, and that providing information about the clear state of affairs is
valuable for the state as well, but at the same time not to involve them officially in the process of the
monitoring.
The perception about the human resources is that some investment will be needed in terms of
capacity building for staff members that will be working on the monitoring, but that there will also
be a need for more staff.
Q&A
In the questions and answers session, Nicola Bertolini used the opportunity to repeat once again the
basic concepts of how this exercise is perceived by DG NEAR.
The Guidelines are a way to improve democracy and will not finish in 2020. The involvement of
institutions should be seen as one of the goals of this exercise. So that one day, nobody will have to
pay for the data, as it will be part of the statistical system, surveys that the countries do. If the
statistical office needs some training, need some help, something should be done about that.
The last point, Nicola Bertolini made, is that the methodology for the survey should be the same in
every country - if one wants to have indicators that are relevant and understandable by everybody,
and used for comparative analysis, so that the sampling, structure of the questionnaire, method of
survey, interviews... all should be the same.
29
Technical Assistance for
Civil Society Organisations
Regional Office
This project is funded
by the European Union.
The Summary points of the panel are:
 If the RCs are tasked with doing the monitoring, some additional financial and human
resources will be required.
 We need to push the governments to produce the necessary data and in the mid or long-term
make this institutional.
 A longer gathering meeting is needed to discuss the details of the methodology. The general
understanding is that the methodology needs to be regional, but reflecting specificities of the
countries.
 We need to take care of the reliability of the data.
 A lot of questions have been opened, rather than answered, but it is now on the European
Commission (EC), TACSO and all of us to try and answer them in the coming weeks.
 The Parliament should be included but on another side of our discussions.
 We should all try to find synergies with other modalities and existing resources, studies and
data.
30
Technical Assistance for
Civil Society Organisations
Regional Office
This project is funded
by the European Union.
Conclusions and recommendations for the future - the closing remarks of the
conference
The final words – a short review of what was set as the Conference goals and what was done
during the Conference - were delivered by Jasenka Perović and Nicola Bertolini
In terms of finalizing the definition of the targets and benchmarks – it can be concluded that during
the conference, participants were able to reach the point of concluding the further refinement of the
targets and benchmarks – in some cases it may require a few cosmetic improvements, but in general
the targets and benchmarks in each of the countries is set. There may be a need for an additional
follow up workshop to have in-depth discussions over one or two indicators. The inputs for the
Progress Reports, in the form of bullet points, were gathered during the Conference, and can be
shared immediately with the respective EUDs.
With regards to the identification of the priority indicators that will be attached to the Enlargement
Strategy, at the moment the priority indicators per country are gathered, but it will have to be seen if
they are the same for all countries, and if they and how they should be further harmonized, i.e.
should the priority indicators be the same for all countries, or is it acceptable that each country has its
own priority indicators attached to the Enlargement Strategy.
Finally, the elements of the monitoring system were reviewed, what the weaknesses of the process
are and where TACSO could contribute with improvements. One of the immediate actions would be
to have a monitoring workshop with the TACSO Resource Centres and IPSOS in June; to plan the
next wave of the TACSO survey; the role of the RCs; and monitoring of some of the indicators in
accordance to the set targets for which we do not have a proper monitoring system in place for the
time being.
Nicola Bertolini reminded the participants that the Guidelines will not conclude in 2020, and it
should be a way to continue developing civil society in all these countries. Monitoring of the
Guidelines is an important activity, which will also continue beyond 2017.
The real needs in terms of financial resources will have to be revisited and the national institutions
will have to be involved gradually to obtain their support.
With regard to the key indicators that are selected for each country, they will have to be assessed which are the common ones in all countries, and, together with a methodological explanation of how
this data was constructed and how these indicators will appear as an annex to the Enlargement
Strategy.
31
Technical Assistance for
Civil Society Organisations
Regional Office
This project is funded
by the European Union.
Evaluation results
EVALUATION FORM
Regional Conference: “Monitoring of the EU Guidelines for the Support to Civil Society in the
Enlargement Countries, 2014-2020 – Year 1”
Belgrade, Serbia
28-30 April 2015
Dear Conference Participant,
We are interested in your assessment of the Conference and we kindly ask you to complete this
evaluation form. For each question, please indicate your opinion using a rating scale from 1 to 5.
A rating of 1 indicates a low level of satisfaction and a rating of 5 indicates a high level of
satisfaction. If you have additional comments please use the last box.
LEVEL OF SATISFACTION:
The content of the Conference
How would you assess the relevance of the topics covered in the
conference to your work?
To what extent have your own expectations about the event been met?
The concept behind the Conference and the Conference sessions
How would you assess the overall concept of the conference?
LOW

How would you assess Session 1 – National consultations: Review of the

national targets and benchmarks defined through the national consultations

facilitated by TACSO with suggestions for improvements
How would you assess Session 2 – Progress Report inputs: Defining the
framework for the country Progress report 2015 in relation to the findings
for 2015 against the EU Guidelines
How would you assess Session 3 – Monitoring: Review of the needed 
elements for the establishment of a monitoring system

Material for the conference
How would you assess the material for the conference?

Capacity building/networking opportunities
To what extent are the knowledge, good practice examples and

information shared at the conference useful for your future work?
To what extent did you find this conference useful for networking?

Conference logistics
How would you assess the overall logistics of the conference?



HIGH
1
2
3
4
5
4,7
1
2
3
4
5
4,4
2
3

4
5
4,5
1
2
3


4
5
1
2
3


4
5
1
2
3
4
5
4
5
1

4,4
4,4
3,7
1


2

3
1

2

3

4
1

2

3

4
5
4,4
1

2

3

4
5
4,8

5
4,3

4,4
To what extent did you receive clear and timely information about the  1
4
 2
 3
 5

conference before it took place?
To what extent did you receive clear and timely information about your  1
5
 2
 3
 4
travel arrangements before the event (if relevant)?

To what extent were you satisfied with the food and refreshments provided
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5

during the event?




Additional comments and suggestions (including suggestions for follow up activities in your country/concrete actions to
be taken by respective stakeholders in your country. Note: please state the country)?

Comments:
32
4,8
4,6
4,6
Technical Assistance for
Civil Society Organisations
Regional Office












This project is funded
by the European Union.
1. One session could have been dedicated to networking with EU Organisations
2. The best!
3. Plenary sessions to report from working groups were too long and technical.
4. The time was too short specifically for the second session. The first session could have been done prior to the
meeting in written preparations by country teams/working groups. So we could have concentrated on priorities and
targets.
5. In terms of logistics, lunch for participants was served only in the smokers section. This should not be the case
as many participants are non-smokers.
6. Thank you for organising such an important event!
7. The name of the Conference is misleading, most of the time was put to rethinking indicators and targets and not
enough on discussing progress in the region and the various obstacles in fulfilling targets set in the guidelines
8. Bravo!
9. Institutions should do their work: all the presented countries
10. Everything was perfectly organised from the professional and logistics point of view
11. Watch out for social event places, some racial comments were made by the waiter and the musicians
12. I am of the suggestion on regional monitoring are a waste of time. One should start working on it, with
resources it has, and then do the ……. Improvements as it goes. Everything else is not so relevant (compatibility,
methodology…)

33
Technical Assistance for
Civil Society Organisations
Regional Office
This project is funded
by the European Union.
Media coverage
Media Monitoring and Press Clipping Report
Monitoring of the EU Guidelines for the Support to Civil Society in the Enlargement Countries
2014 – 2020 – Year 1.
Regional Conference – Belgrade – April 28-30, 2015.
The opening remarks of the Conference were covered by the journalists from media outlets from the
region:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
TANJUG, Serbia
FONET, Serbia
RTV Vojvodina, Serbia
Koha Ditore, Kosovo
MIA, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
BIANET, Turkey
The mailing list of media outlets was created for this Conference totalling to 231 contacts in the
TACSO countries. The media received the announcement for the Regional Conference - a short
article at the end of the first day and the press release.
Due to the specific and technical topic of the Conference, the expectations for the press clipping
were 15 to 20. However, we recorded 47 published items.
All published items were done without major editorial interventions, with one exception of an online
edition of Pravda news (Serbia edition) where the title said “Brussels gives 350 million for NGOs
and Turkey, what they will ask in return”. All subsequent comments to the items published were
positive.
The news items were published in Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Albania,
and Turkey.
Please follow the link to download the excerpts from the press clipping.
34
Technical Assistance for
Civil Society Organisations
Regional Office
This project is funded
by the European Union.
Annex A.
Agenda
Annex B
List of Participants
Annex C
Template for setting national targets and benchmarks
Annex D
Presentation: Overview of the process and what are the intended objectives of the
Conference by Jasenka Perović
Annex E
Presentation: EU Guidelines for the Support to Civil Society in the Enlargement
Countries 2014-2020 - Updated version, April, 2015 by Tina Divjak
Annex F
Presentation: Additional modifications to benchmarks and targets, by Tina Divjak
35