INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS OF COOPERATION OF
GOVERNMENT AND CIVIL SOCIETY: COMPARATIVE
EXPERIENCES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SERBIA
Authors: Dragan Golubović and Branka Anđelković
This report was prepared by the Poverty Reduction Strategy Implementation Focal Point.
The views expressed herein represent the views of its authors and do not necessarily reflect
the opinions of the Government of the Republic of Serbia.
Contents
Institutional Mechanisms of Cooperation of Government and Civil Society: Comparative
Experiences and Recommendations for Serbia ..................................................................... 1
Summary ............................................................................................................................... 3
I. Institutional Mechanisms of Cooperation: Comparative Experiences .................................. 4
1. Introductory remarks ...................................................................................................... 4
2. Why would the Government be interested in cooperation with the civil society? ............ 4
3. Key Institutional Mechanisms of Cooperation ................................................................ 6
II. Mechanism of Cooperation: Situation in Serbia ................................................................11
1. Introductory remarks .....................................................................................................11
2. Overview of the existing models of cooperation between the Government of Serbia and
the civil society organizations ...........................................................................................12
3. Challenges for cooperation between the Government and the CSOs ...........................14
4. Areas of cooperation between the Government and the CSO.......................................15
Recommendations for Serbia: ..............................................................................................19
APPENDIX 1: Proposal of overall competencies of the Office ..............................................20
2
Summary
1. Establishment of an institutional mechanism of cooperation between Government and the
civil society is aimed at ensuring continuity and sustainability of this cooperation; it
strengthens partnership between Government and the civil society and their capacities.
Establishment of partnerships and capacity building of civil society are relevant to a
Government for several reasons: 1) role of civil society in modern democracies and the
European Union (civil society organizations enable citizens to articulate, defend and
advocate continuously, and not only at elections, for their legitimate interests in public and
political life); 2) disburdening the state apparatus (provision of social and other services
by the civil society organizations with a view to developing a more cost-efficient and higher
quality social welfare system, a significant role of the civil society organizations in almost all
of the areas of social life); 3) role of the civil society in the process of EU integration.
2. The civil society plays an important role in the process of European integration of the
countries of Western Balkans. A new Instrument for Pre Accession Assistance for these
countries (IPA program) provides allocations of EUR 11, 467 billion for a period of seven
years. The novelty of IPA, relative to other pre-accession instruments to date, is a
considerably higher participation of the state in programming and proposing project
priorities and taking over responsibility for implementation thereof. This will require
mobilization of all available resources, including those of the civil society. Therefore, the
Progress Report on the Countries of Western Balkans on their road to EU, published by
the European Commission in March 2008, notes the significance of civil society in the
process of comprehensive reforms in these countries, as well as the necessity of
creating adequate institutional conditions for development and operation of the civil
society organizations.
3. The institutional mechanisms of cooperation may take different forms (agreement, office
for cooperation with civil society, foundation or civil society development fund) which are
complementary rather than mutually exclusive. Bearing in mind comparative experiences and
the current level of development of the civil society in Serbia, establishment of an Office for
Cooperation with the Civil Society of the Government of Republic of Serbia represents
the first, appropriate step towards the establishment of an institutional mechanism of
cooperation.
4. Should the Government, following the public discussion and consultations with civil
society, opt for establishment of the Office, the following is required: the mandate of
the office and principles of cooperation should be flexibly but explicitly defined in order to
avoid any misunderstandings about its objectives and its role, as well as its authority in
cooperation with the civil society; the founding act should define that the Office inter alia
promotes the basic Constitutional rights and values; identify the group of civil society
organizations within the mandate of the office; define the role of the Office in the process of
EU integration, including the possibility of participation of the Office in programming IPA
funds; explore the possibility of obtaining donor assistance for founding and early functioning
of the Office in view of the current budgetary restrictions; for the Office to begin its work as a
new institution, rather than a continuation of one of the previous Government projects;
appoint head of the Office experienced in working with civil society, donors and public
administration and a person who is well trusted by the civil society.
3
I. INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS OF COOPERATION: COMPARATIVE EXPERIENCES1
1. Introductory remarks
Establishment of an institutional mechanism of cooperation between Government and
organizations of civil society (CSO) is a recent social phenomena2. It first appeared in Great
Britain in the form of an agreement on cooperation (compact) signed by the Government and
the CSO representatives. Two documents were particularly relevant for signing of this
agreement: the 1996 Report of the Deakin Commission and the 1997 Labour Party
Programme (“New Labour”)3. The Programme, published on the eve of parliamentary
elections, stressed the significance of cooperation between the Government and the civil
society in implementation of comprehensive economic and political reforms, as well as in
promotion of values underpinning a socially just and inclusive society.
Following its accession to power, the Labor Party of Tony Blair set about implementing its
programme principles and recommendations from the Deakin Report. The Government
signed compacts in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in October and
November 1998, as a first step in the process of establishment of a comprehensive
institutional mechanism of cooperation. Over the past ten years since the signing of
compacts, the CSOs have become a key Government partner in implementation of social,
economic and political reforms, and a relevant economic factor. The results of a thorough
survey published in 2006 indicated that the voluntary sector in England employs over
600,000 persons and generates an annual income of GBP 26,5 billion.
After Great Britain, various institutional mechanisms of cooperation were established in other
European countries (France, Denmark, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Estonia,
etc). These mechanisms were put in place in some form also in the countries of former
SFRY, and partly in Serbia (for the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina), as well as in
international multilateral organizations. Thus, the CSOs enjoy the advisory status in the
United Nations, the World Bank, the Council of Europe, the European Union (European
Commission) and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
2. Why would the Government be interested in cooperation with the civil
society?
The key public policy reason for a Government to establish institutional mechanisms of
cooperation with the civil society is the need to ensure continuity and sustainability of this
cooperation. The mechanism of cooperation is not in function of stateism of civil society
(which due to its pluralistic and “diffused” nature opposes all, and particularly, rigid
standardization), but in the function of putting in place lasting dialogue and partnership
between a Government and the civil society and strengthening capacities of the latter.
Partnership with the civil society is of particular significance to a Government for several
reasons:
1
This report is divided into two chapters: Chapter I and Recommendations for Serbia, prepared by Dr
Dragan Golubović, Senior Legal Advisor at the European Centre for Non-Profit Law (ECNL) in Budapest.
Chapter II was prepared by Mr Branka Anđelković, Consultant. Part of Chapter II that refers to legislative
framework and tax legislation was prepared jointly by the authors.
2
Civil society organizations include various forms of private-initative organizing meeting the following criteria:
1) etsablished by means of a contract or another private-law instrument (decision on establishment, testament,
etc); 2) established with the aim of achieving an ideal goal with a general beneficial or private purpose; 3)
established on a voluntary basis; 4) are not part of the national authority structures. In the context of Serbia, civil
society organizations include associtions, legacies, fondations and funds. From the legal comparative view, civil
society organizations include non-profit organizations, private institutions, as well as other forms of orgnizing
meeting the abovementioned criteria.
3
The Deakin Commission Report: The Future of Voluntary Sector, Labor Party: Building the Future Together.
4
1) CSO role in modern democracies. The organizations of civil society play an
important role in modern democracies: associations and other forms of CSOs enable citizens
to articulate, defend and advocate their legitimate interests in public and political life
continuously, and not only in the periods of elections. In that sense, the civil society is key to
ensuring participatory democracy. This role has been recognized in the relevant international
documents. Thus, the second chapter of the 2007 EU Lisbon Agreement states
representative democracy (role of political parties) and participatory democracy (role of civil
society) as key democratic principles that the EU is founded on. The Agreement guarantees
each citizen the right to take part in the democratic life of the Union and places a
responsibility on the institutions and agencies of the Union for enabling the citizens and
representative CSOs to express and publicly share their opinions on all the areas of activity
of the Union in an appropriate manner.4 The provisions of the 2007 Recommendations of the
Committee of Ministers to the Council of Europe member states on the legal status of CSOs
(Chapter VIII – Participation in the Decision-Making Processes)5 are similar. The international
legal regime of protection of the right to free association also represents recognition of a key
role that associations and other membership organizations play in exercising participatory
democracy.
The civil society has a special place in the countries of Central Europe, the new EU member
states. During the age of communism, the civil society (i.e. remnants thereof) preserved
memory of the “history interrupted” and its democratic values. Furthermore, the civil society
played a key role in the process of peaceful transition of (communist) government and reestablishment of democratic order. This is one of the main reasons for which these countries
often take the lead in creating innovative mechanisms of cooperation between the state and
the civil society.
2) Disburdening the state apparatus and strenghtening intersectoral cooperation. The
limited financial and human resources of states, as well as growing and ever more complex
social needs call for “privatization” of social and other services that were traditionally the
realm of constitutional mandate of Governments, i.e. for creation of conditions for these
services to be provided by private stakeholders to a greater extent (CSOs and commercial
companies). That is why the crisis of a “state of prosperity” is mentioned. The scope of social
services provided by CSOs is on the rise. For instance, in England the number of employees
in CSOs providing social services rose from 149,000 to 272,000 or by 86% in the period
1996-2005. The same trend was observed relative to the programmes of social and
economic assistance and poverty reduction in underdeveloped countries were governments
and multilateral donors are ever more often replaced or complemented by large private
foundations. However, Government – CSO cooperation is not limited exclusively to the area
of social services. There seems to be no area of social activity today were CSOs do not play
a prominent role in developing and implementation of public policies (building of a legal state,
reducing unemployment and poverty, sustainable development, promotion of volunteer work,
social inclusion, repatriation of refugees, gender equality, protection of minorities,
environmental protection, fight against corruption, education, culture, amateur sports, good
neighboring cooperation, Euro-Atlantic Integrations, etc). These are at the heart of the
interest of governments to establish partnership relations with the civil society. Finally, the
institutional mechanism of cooperation may be particularly relevant for the countries in
transition: due to weak institutions, limited human and financial resources, partnership of the
4
The Treaty of Lisbon changes the provisions of the Agreement on European Union and the Agreement on
Establishment of the European Community. It was signed by heads of states and EU government members on 3
December 2007, and published in the Official Journal of the European Union No. C 306-10 of 18 February 2007.
Although initially planned for the Agreement to enter into force, i.e. to be ratified in all member states by end of
2008, the negative results of referendum in the Republic of Ireland slowed down this process and made its
outcome uncertain.
5
Recommendation CM/Rec (2007)14.
5
state and private stakeholders may contribute to accelerated and successful completion of
the transition process.
3) The European Integration process. The civil society may play an important role in
the process of European integration. This role has its political aspect (mobilization of citizens
for European values, promotion of advantages of EU integration, etc.) and economic and
institutional aspects (strengthening capacities for optimum use of available EU funds). For
instance, in Estonia, a joint committee of Government and representative CSO
representatives was established which played an important role in fulfilling conditions for full
membership in EU. On the other hand, Czech Republic set up an efficient political and
institutional mechanism for provision of assistance to CSOs in applying for pre-accession
funds. In this way the overall institutional capacities for drawing these funds were significantly
enhanced. This is particularly relevant in view of the fact that it is precisely the insufficient
institutional capacities of candidate countries that are a key reason for insufficient use of
available EU funds.6
The cooperation with the civil society per se is not a condition for EU membership, but
certainly bears particular importance for all the Western Balkans countries in the process of
EU integration. The new Instrument for pre-accession assistance to countries of Western
Balkans (IPA programme) provides for an allocation of EUR 11.467 billion over seven years,
in order to assist these countries in harmonizing national legislation with the EU acquis
communautaire and building capacities to utilise structural funds, rural development funds
and cohesion fund proceeds.7 The novelty of IPA relative to the previous pre-accession
instruments of assistance is a considerably higher participation of state in programming and
proposing project priorities and taking over the responsibility for implementation thereof. This
will require mobilization of all the available resources, including those of the civil society. With
a view to this, the Progress Report on the Countries of Western Balkans – Enhancing the
European Perspective, published by the European Commission in March 2008 notes the
significance of the civil society in the process of comprehensive reforms in these countries
and the necessity of establishment of adequate institutional conditions for development and
functioning of CSOs.8
3. KEY INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS OF COOPERATION
3.1. Two approaches to building mechanisms of cooperation
The countries did not, automatically on the basis of the above mentioned reasons and to the
equal extent, opt for establishment of institutional mechanisms of cooperation between
Governments and civil society; the process depended on their specificities and requirements.
The cooperation was initiated either “bottom down”, by the government, or “from bottom up”,
by the civil society. In Great Britain and Estonia, for instance, the Governments initiated the
process of putting in place the institutional mechanisms of cooperation only after the critical
mass for establishment of the partnership had been created on the part of the civil society
(“from the bottom to the top”). On the other hand, in Croatia, it was precisely the creation of
the institutional mechanisms of cooperation that significantly contributed to strengthening the
capacities of the civil society and its growing social role (“from the top to the bottom”). The
mechanisms of cooperation may take various forms: cooperation agreement, office for
cooperation with the civil society, foundation or civil society development fund, a separate
6
Thus Bulgaria and Romania, before becoming full members, never drew more than 50% of proceeds available
to them in the EU pre-accession funds. Over EUR 2 billion thus remained unused in the period 2004-2006.
7
Regulations of the Council of Ministers EU, 1085/2006.
8
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: Western Balkans:
Enhancing the European perspective SEC (2008) 288.
6
sector or a focal point at the ministry in charge of cooperation with the civil society, etc.
Certain forms of cooperation are not mutually exclusive but complementary.
3.2. Agreement on cooperation
Signing of an agreement is often, though not necessarily, the first step in establishment of a
wider institutional mechanism of cooperation between Government and the civil society
(Great Britain, BiH, Estonia).9 From the aspect of doctrine, an agreement on cooperation is
not to be confused with a Government strategy for development of a civil society. Namely,
while an agreement represents a document adopted by both signatories who are then put in
charge of its implementation each within its respective area of work, a strategy is a document
adopted by one side only – the Government which is in ultima linea the sole party
responsible for its implementation even if adopted with full participation of a civil society.
Irrespective of varying titles used for the agreement in different states (compact, charter, etc),
it must be noted that the agreement does not represent a contract in the actual sense, but
primarily a political document. A good comparative practice indicates that an effective
agreement must contain the following elements:
 Identification of joint principles and values shared by the signatories – these
provisions indicate the significance of CSO to the development of a dynamic and pluralistic
democratic society, to differing, but complementary, obligations of the Government and the
civil society and define the principles of cooperation (partnership, transparency,
independence, etc).10
 Recognition of the role of civil society and CSOs in public and political life – these
provisions are to encourage the government to develop a legal framework conducive to an
enhanced CSOs participation in the work of political institutions and better approach to
information relevant for fulfilling the direct needs of citizens.
 Representativeness, or the issue of legitimacy of the signatories on the part of CSOs
– these provisions define the procedure of ensuring legitimacy of CSO representatives signatories of the agreement.
 Identification of social and other services and programmes wherein CSOs have a
particularly important role – these provisions identify social and other services the provision
of which the CSOs are taking part of the responsibility for, in order to make these services
cheaper and of higher quality.
 Establishment of a principle of public financing of CSOs – financing provisions contain
basic principles in allocation of budget funds to CSOs; they define best practices in allocation
of funds and minimum standards of CSOs accountability related to the use of allocated
funds.
9
With reference to the state authority, the most frequent signatory of agreements is the goverment, with the
exception of Estonia, where the Parliament is the signatory.
10
The compact signed in England states the following principles shared by the Government and the civil sector:
volunteer action of citizens is an intrinsic part of a democratic society; the independent and developed third
(volunteer) sector and community organizations are of fundamental significance for welfare of a social
community; Government and CSOs have distinct but complementary roles and responsibilities in development
of public policies and services; the cooperation towards a shared objective may only be beneficial; content-wise
meaningful consultations contribute to establishment of stronger cooperation and enhance the quality of services
and programmes; the Government and CSOs have distinct responsibilities but share the need for integrity,
objectivity, transparency, integrity and true leadership; CSOs and community organizations may, within the
boundaries provided for by the law, lobby for fulfillment of their legitimate aims; the Government and CSOs
recognise the significance of efforts to creation of equal opportunities for all citizens, irrespective of their race,
age, capacity, gender, sexual orientation or ethnic affiliation.
7
 Establishment of the agreement implementation and monitoring mechanisms – the
provisions related to agreement implementation map out concrete steps in identifying
agencies in charge of implementation of the agreement, define mechanisms of cooperation
and information sharing in fulfillment of responsibilities, as well as a method of dispute
resolution.
The advantages and risks identified in the practice of the agreement implementation are
presented in the below table:
TABLE I
ADVANTAGES OF AGREEMENT
For the Government: agreement may be suitable
for establishment of intersectoral cooperation and
formalization of partnership with the civil society,
especially when faced with a surge in the needs
in the area of social and other services, or when
mobilisation of all social resources is required for
implementation of profound social and economic
reforms, i.e. fulfillment of political objectives such
as full membership of the European Union;
For CSO: an agreement may constitute a
suitable mechanism of establishing partnership
with the Government, as it may serve to influence
reduction of discretionary authority of the
government in defining public interest and
priorities as well as criteria for budget financing of
CSOs.11
3.3.
RISKS
Legally non binding document, declaration of
taking over responsibilities without genuine
intention and political will to implement it.
More of a (declaratory) document of public policy,
than an action mechanism of cooperation with the
civil society, if adequate monitoring and
implementation mechanisms have not been set
out – even if there is political will.
Unrealistic expectations and lack of
understanding of objectives to be achieved by the
agreement.
Protracted timeframe for the agreement to
become viable in practice.
Absence of reliable criteria for assessment of
results in agreement implementation.
Government Office for Cooperation with the Civil Society
A Government office is the key mechanism for establishment of Government – civil society
partnership in numerous countries (Poland, Croatia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary,
Montenegro). From the administrative aspect, the office functions as an organizational unit of
the Government. Consequently, it does not have the character of a legal entity but it does
have certain competencies in legal transactions. From the aspect of authority, the office
represents a focal point for cooperation of the Government and civil society and has a
broadly defined mandate. It must be noted that establishment of the office is not to suspend
best practices and mechanisms of cooperation already in place between line ministries and
CSOs. Quite the contrary, the establishment of the office should be in the function of
promotion of quality and scope thereof. In particular, the office performs the following duties:

Initiates adoption of legislation and public policy documents relevant for CSO legal
and tax-related status of and monitors or is accountable for implementation of these
regulations and policies;
11
Thus the compact signed in England, the Government inter alia conceded that legitimate criticism of the
Government by CSOs would not affect their funding from the state budget; that it would take into account the
report: ” Access to Government Funding for the Voluntary Sector”, prepared by the special, Better Regulation
Task Force, stressing the necessity for higher proportionality, enhanced definition of objectives, stronger
consistency and transparency in the mechanism of government funding of CSOs; and that it would work on
developing a Code of Good Practice for their budget funding in cooperation with CSOs.
8

Initiates dialogue with the civil society on public policy issues, especially those not
within direct mandate of a particular ministry or other Government agency;

Coordinates and encourages cooperation of ministries and other Government
agencies, as well as local self-government bodies with CSOs;

Collects and disseminates information relevant for the civil society organizations,
organizes round tables, conferences, trainings, seminars, workshops and study trips,
publishes publications and undertakes other actions with a view to strengthening
capacities of the civil society;

Provides logistic and other kinds of support towards development of civil society to
the advisory bodies of the Government;

Finances programmes of the civil society from distinct state budget funds;

Takes part in programming EU pre-accession funds for civil society support (CARDS,
PHARE, IPA).
Further to the above, it is noteworthy mentioning the key role of the Office in Croatia to
establishment of transparent mechanisms and procedures for state financing of CSOs,
increase of budget funds allocated to CSOs, in particular in areas symbolically financed prior
to establishment of the Office (human rights, minority protection, etc), as well as
establishment of a decentralized mechanism of CSOs budget financing – after the
centralized financing system started showing signs of atrophy.12
The advantages and risks of this mechanism of cooperation are shown in the table below:
TABLE II
ADVANTAGES OF THE OFFICE
Focal point for cooperation
government and the civil society.
between
RISKS
the
Encourages and promotes cooperation between
the civil society and line ministries.
Ensures higher mobility of public policy
documents and legislative proposals relevant for
the civil society.
Ensures more efficient implementation of the
legislation endorsed and public policies.
Suitable mechanism for building confidence and
strengthening
partnerships
between
the
government and CSOs.
Suitable mechanism for civil society capacity
building.
Office established pro forma, so as to satisfy
donor/EU interest, with minimum administrative
capacities.
Office serving as a pretext to other ministries not
to cooperate with CSOs within their respective
mandates.
Vague operating procedures of the office and of
allocation of funds.
The person heading the office does not
understand civil society and may do more harm
than good.
Participation of office in managing EU preaccession funds may weaken its focus on other
significant tasks and its overall administrative
capacities.
Mechanism of managing pre-accession funds of
EU for civil society development.
3.4. Civil Society Development Foundation
Foundation for civil society development represents a successful example of this new
mechanism of cooperation between Government and the civil society. This mechanism
appeared in Croatia, in the second, mature phase of development of institutional cooperation
12
The Office of the Government of the Republic of Croatia for Cooperation with Cooperatives funded 1, 997
projects amounting to cca EUR 14 million in total in the period 1999-2003.
9
between the Government and the civil society. The foundation (endowment) was established
by a special law in 2003 with the main objective to promote and develop civil society in the
Republic of Croatia. The establishment thereof coincided with adoption of the Law on
National Fund for Civil Society Development in Hungary that same year. However, this Fund
will not be subject of further deliberations as it is primarily a (controversial) instrument of
CSOs financing, though provision of financial support should be but one of the key aims of
the Fund.
The Foundation provides expert and financial support to programmes and projects promoting
sustainability of non-profit sector, intersector cooperation, civic initiatives, philanthropy,
volunteering and advancement of democratic institutions. From the legal aspect, the
Foundation is a public legal entity. However, the majority of the Steering Committee
members are representatives and experts in the area of civil society and not the
representatives of the government. One seat in the Steering Committee is reserved for a
representative of a local and regional self-government unit. The Foundation is financed from
the budget – earmarked on the separate item of Office for Cooperatives, from the part of
proceeds of lottery games and games of fortune (proportionally representing the most
significant source of income for the Foundation), passive income from real estate, donations,
etc. The annual and financial operation reports are endorsed by the Parliament of the
Republic of Croatia.
Despite certain initial overlaps in operation of the Foundation and the Office, the former
ensured its distinctive place in strengthening capacities and establishment of partnerships
with the civil society. To that effect, the Foundation champions and promotes initiatives for
networking Croatian CSOs with EU umbrella organizations thus promoting their active
participation in development of public policies at the EU level. Furthermore, the Foundation is
particularly active in the area of social entrepreneurship, employment in the non-profit sector
and public policy advocacy.
The positive and negative experiences of the Foundation, and potential risks related to the
model of public – legal foundation are presented in the table below:
TABLE III
ADVANTAGES OF FOUNDATION
RISKS
Enables
genuine
partnership
between
Government and the civil society, by way of
mixed composition of the steering committee.
Not necessarily an efficient mechanism for
establishment partnerships with the civil society
at its early stage of development, especially for
fulfillment of commitments directly taken over by
the Government, since the latter is not directly
accountable for operation of the foundation
(monitoring rather than a managerial function).
Greater operational flexibility and capacity to
swiftly respond to social needs relative to the
body directly controlled by the Government.
Plays an important role in better integration of the
civil society of the candidate state with the
umbrella CSOs operating at the EU institutions.
Suitable mechanism for promotion of social
entrepreneurship and civil society capacity
strengthening.
Risk of overlap of competencies between the
foundation and the office for cooperation.
Relative to the above, risk from excessive
normativisation of the civil society.
Requires higher seed capital than the office.
10
II. MECHANISM OF COOPERATION: SITUATION IN SERBIA
1. Introductory remarks
Although there are no official data, it is estimated that there are between 20-25,000
associations registered in Serbia. According to the data of the Ministry of Culture, there are
more than 700 registered legacies and fondations. In 2007, more than 60 million euros was
allocated from the state budgget on account of support for civil society organizations
(CSO).13 As of 2003, the Republic of Serbia has been allocating increasingly more resources
for the work of CSOs: for example, the state allocated some 17 million eur for the 481 budget
line in 2003, while the amount rose to 46 million in 2006. However, resources allocated for
political parties, sports associations, religious organizations and „citizen associations and
non-government organizations“ are also registered in this line, wherefore it is difficult to
establish precisely which amount is allocated for each individual item.14
The Government- CSOs cooperation in Serbia is still in its initial phase. According to the
results of the first empirical research of the civil society in Serbia, CIVICUS15, the majority of
organizations consider it still to be very limited (47%), despite various forms of
communication between the Government and CSOs. Over the recent years, the state and
the CSOs communicated only as required, most often on the issue of EU integrations,
poverty reduction and social policy, as well as sustainable local development. Therefore, the
inter-sector cooperation to date reflects the situation of the society and the problems faced
by Serbia in the process of political and economic transition.
With the constitution of the new Government, Serbia expressed its strong commitment to
European integration. In line with that, in his keynote speech to the Parliament on 7 July
2008, the Prime Minister Mirko Cvetković emphasized: „Providing appropriate mechanisms
of cooperation between the state and civil society will have its rightful place in the area of
establishing the rule of law”, and stated that it would represent one of the priorities in the
future work of the Government of Serbia. Establishment of an institutional, legal and strategic
framework for cooperation between these two sectors is therefore of vital significance, since
the pluralistic democratic society is one of the prerequisites of a successful European
integration process.
The changes of attitude of the Government towards the organizations of the civil society
were brought about by the Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS) developed in 2002-2003. The
process of PRS development gathered, for the first time, government institutions and the
CSOs as well as representatives of business sector at the national and local levels around
the preparation of a national strategic document of the Republic of Serbia. The number or
organizations that took part in the consultative process made the drafting of this Strategy
unique – more than 250 CSOs submitted their comments in the course of development of the
Strategy.
The process of Poverty Reduction Strategy implementation relies on four key principles that
largely outlined and developed the framework of cooperation between the Government and
CSOs thus far: linkages to the European integration process, integration of poverty reduction
into reforms processes and stakeholders' activities, promotion of participatory approach to
PRS implementation relying exclusively on the experience acquired in PRS development and
stressing the PRS implementation at the local level.
13
Neprofitni sector, Bilten Centra za razvoj neprofitnog sektora, Beograd, Srbija, Broj 31, oktobar 2008
Ibid.
15
Civil Society in Serbia: Suppressed during the 1990s – Gaining Legitimacy and Recognition after 2000,
ARGUMENT I Centre for Non-Profit Sector Development, Belgrade, 2006
14
11
2. Overview of the existing models of cooperation between the Government of
Serbia and the civil society organizations
There are different forms of cooperation between the Government and the civil society in
Serbia. These entail individual cooperation agreements signed by Government agencies and
CSOs, participation in development of national and local strategies and strategic documents,
concluding contracts with CSOs for provision of services, sector development funds and
permanent and ad hoc consultations. Notwithstanding success thus far, the key
characteristics of the attitude of the Government to the civil society in Serbia remain
fragmented cooperation, lack of understanding of the civil society and selective approach to
CSOs16. The representatives of the civil society believe that there is more to the true dialogue
than that, and that the cooperation of these two sectors entails also establishment of an
institutional mechanism of cooperation.
1.Cooperation agreements. As stated above, signing of an agreement frequently
represents the first step to establishment of a broader institutional mechanism of cooperation
between government and the civil society. The best practice examples are the EU Integration
Office of the Government of the Republic of Serbia (SEIO) and the Deputy Prime Minister’s
Poverty Reduction Strategy Implementation Focal Point: these two Government agencies are
very deserving for intensification and expansion of cooperation with the civil sector in recent
years. The former establishes cooperation with CSOs on a formal Agreement, while the latter
defines a partnership framework on the project level (Civil Society Focal Points). The work of
these Government agencies and institutions proves that success is possible and that, based
on this practice, today Serbia is sufficiently experienced to embark upon a new phase of
cooperation with CSOs through improvement and systemic institutionalization of relations.
2. Participation in formulation of national and local strategies and strategic
documents. The experience of Serbia has shown that the Government most often seeks
partners among the CSOs in the phase of development of national and local strategies it is
responsible for. There are currently over 40 national strategies in the formulation of which
CSOs took part. The Poverty Reduction Strategy adopted in 2003 paved the way for CSOs
participation in strategic processes. The Sustainable Development Strategy, National Action
Plan for Children, Strategy on Ageing, national plans and actions for persons with disabilities
and gender equality are but a few of the examples of CSOs participation in preparation of
national development documents. Consequently, good practice of carrying out consultations
in the course of development of strategic documents has been established.
Thanks to their thorough insight into the situation at the local level and the problems of
specific social categories, the CSOs are often involved in strategic planning and
implementation of various local programmes. They are often partners in development of local
sustainable development strategies and strategies of socio-economic development in cities
and municipalities of Serbia, in drafting strategies for participation of citizens at the local level
as well as local action plans for children and social policy.
3. Contracting services provided by CSOs. The majority of ministries in Serbia has
programmes and funds providing for conclusion of agreements with CSOs with a view to
provision of various services. The legal basis for this practice is on the line 481 of the
Republican budget referring to CSO financing. Contracting is more or less present in sectors
such as social welfare, health, education, employment, sports and youth, culture, science,
etc. Thus, for instance, the Ministry of Youth and Sports invited the CSOs dealing with the
issues of youth in Serbia to get involved in implementation of the Strategy for Youth. The
Deputy Prime Minister’s PRS Implementation Focal Point signed contracts on cooperation
with ten CSOs with the aim that the organizations, by networking further with civil society,
16
European Partnership for 2008, Official Journal of the European Union, 18 February 2008; Serbia 2007
Progress Report, Commission of the European Communities, November 2007
12
establish a wider partnership between the Government and CSOs in the PRS
implementation process at the local level.
One of the most successful models of contracting CSO services was applied by the Ministry
of Labour and Social Policy through its Social Innovations Fund (SIF). The Fund has been
financing CSOs projects aimed at promoting social welfare reforms and provision of services
at a local level for years. It is funded from the budget with additional support from donors.
The second fund that the Ministry manages is the Fund for Organizations of Persons with
Disabilities. Various ensuing initiatives were based on the work of this Ministry. Other
ministries also tend to engage CSOs in implementation of programmes of improvement of
social and economic status of vulnerable categories. For instance, the Ministry of Health
cooperates with the CSOs in improvement of the health of Roma, persons with HIV-AIDS;
the National Employment Service commissions CSOs for carrying out of vocational trainings
for the unemployed, while the Ministry of Interior cooperates with CSOs in training of
employees for work with victims of violence.
In the domain of contracting CSO services for monitoring Government activities and
assessment of success of the government programmes, the cooperation remains sporadic.
To date, this form of engagement was mainly piloted by the PRS IFP. In the course of time
distinct mechanisms for involvement of CSOs in the process of monitoring of programme
implementation and their evaluation have been identified. The Ministry of Labor and Social
Policy was also engaged in setting up a model of CSO engagement in monitoring and
evaluation of SIF projects and of the Fund for Organizations for Persons with Disabilities, but
this has not yet been integrated into everyday, routine work of the Ministry.
4.Regional and metropolitan/municipal funds for non-profit sector development. The
Fund for Development of Non-Profit Sector of AP Vojvodina was founded in 2004 and is the
first of a kind in Serbia. The Fund finances projects aimed at promotion of CSO development
and establishment of standardized cooperation between the local governments and CSOs.
The objectives of the Fund are promotion of the culture of transparency and accountability in
AP Vojvodina and strengthening of democratic values. Certain cities in Serbia such as
Belgrade, Niš, Novi Sad, and Zrenjanin have also set up funds for promotion of CSO
development but these are still at an early stage.
5.Forum for consultations. The theme Forum of the Parliament was initiated by the
Poverty Reduction Committee of the Parliament of Serbia. The objective of the Forum is to
enhance information dissipation to the members of Parliament about best practices and
initiatives for resolution of problems identified during implementation. CSOs are permanent
participants of this Forum.
6. Civil Society Council. The Council was established at the Prime Minister’s Cabinet
two years ago as an advisory body to the Prime Minister on issues relevant to civil society.
7. Participation in legislative procedures. CSOs are occasionally consulted during the
process of legislation drafting. This practice is especially implemented in the domain of social
welfare and social policy. One of the most recent examples is the Law on Professional
Rehabilitation and Employment of Persons with Disabilities, that gathered a considerable
number of CSOs dealing with this issue. Furthermore, the Ministry of State Administration
and Local Self-Government also harbors good practices of cooperation with CSOs; an
example of best practice of this Ministry includes the work of development of a Draft Law on
Associations, but also other legislative projects. Similarly, the Ministry of Culture is actively
cooperating with CSOs in the development of a new law on endowments and foundations.
The above examples are considered instances of a relatively successful Government-CSOs
cooperation in Serbia. In the course of programmes' execution, the participants representatives of both sectors - faced numerous challenges. This suggests that the process
of establishment of dialogue between the two is not easy. However, the analysis of existing
plans and activities of the Government and its institutions indicates the possibility for
continuous involvement and institutional cooperation with the CSOs.
13
3. Challenges for cooperation between the Government and the CSOs
According to the European Union assessments17 , the civil society in Serbia faces numerous
challenges. With respect to the status of civil society in Serbia, the following, acute, problems
have been identified:
Legislative framework. Serbia is late in reforming status legislation for CSOs. The Draft Law
on Associations was submitted to the Parliament of the Republic of Serbia through
accelerated procedure and is to be endorsed shortly. Further to the issues of status and legal
issues, the Draft Law stipulates the procedure of allocation of budget funds to associations
by the state agencies and local self-governments. However, this Law, once endorsed, will not
resolve all the problems related to the status and sustainability of CSOs. Therefore, this Law
is only one of the necessary steps towards an improved definition of framework for action
and financing of CSOs. In addition to the Law on Associations, endorsement of other status
laws, including a new law on endowments and foundations and the law on private
institutions, is indispensable.
Tax legislation. Contributions for community benefit are not sufficiently stimulated by tax
legislation (primarily due to restrictive definition of community benefit activities), which
unjustifiably discriminates associations relative to foundations, even when they execute
identical statutory activities.
Absence of institutional dialogue. The future participation of civil society organizations in the
systematic dialogue with the Government of Serbia calls for higher transparency,
consultative dialogue, conceptualized communication and regular exchange of relevant
documents and information. With respect to that, the European Commission Report18 states
that the mechanisms for consultations with public and provision of information about the
Government work are underdeveloped. The Government should ensure implementation of
the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Interest. The weaknesses in the process of
law development prevent continuous insight of citizens into the status of laws, which is also
detrimental on the rule of law. The number of consultations during the phase of development
of laws is not adequate. One consequences of this type of approach is a low quality of
numerous laws that require additional changes. The ensuing process of changing laws
increases additionally the cost of law implementation and leads to insecurity among those
who need to observe them.
The civil society in Serbia is faced with continuous weakening. This has to do with the
impotence of the sector to fulfill the criteria of continuous professional advancement and
specialization in its operation. It is a significant obstacle to contracting services provided by
CSOs, particularly so in small and underdeveloped areas. This additionally threatens small
organizations which find it ever more difficult to survive as they cannot fulfill the conditions of
their professional action. The other problems relate to development of the sector itself: the
majority of organizations are located in cities, while their activity is hardly noticeable in
smaller areas - rural areas, in particular. Consequently, the citizens have but modest
information about the activities and significance of CSOs work.
Economic problems. These problems are fundamental as they directly affect the operation of
CSOs. Budget funds are limited to a small number of projects. Furthermore, foreign
donations are also dwindling thus threatening the very existence of the majority of
organizations of the civil society. The strong competition among organizations further
weakens the positions of the sector relative to the Government. A practical challenge lies in
facing with mutual requests for better communication between the CSOs and the
Government. Due to a large number of organizations active in different sectors and areas,
the Government finds it hard to establish cooperation with them. On the other hand, one
EU – Srbia: Role of the Civil Society, Economic- Social Committee of the European Union, Brussels, June
2008
18
SIGMA – Policy Development and Coordination,Report of the European Commission for Serbia, May 2008.
17
14
group cannot represent the entire civil society so the issue of representativeness is posed
again. CIVIKUS report characterizes the communication between CSOs as inadequate and
limited. The number of networks and coalitions is also limited. Consequently, when the need
appears for presence of a civil society representative in certain processes, the Government
has difficulty in choosing individuals or organizations to represent the sector.
Lack of cooperation between the Government and the organizations dealing with advocacy
and human rights. Generally, the Government and the political structures in Serbia do not
consider civil society organizations as partners. This is particularly true of CSOs dealing with
sensitive issues from recent past or jeopardized rights of citizens.
Government planning process is insufficiently developed. The annual Government planning
process, although welcome, is very narrowly defined as a process in which contributions of
individual ministries are collected and not as a process aimed at fulfilling collective priorities.
In addition, the strategic planning system has neither been established nor linked to the
budget process. Sector or inter-sector strategies abound but absence of an umbrella
strategic framework for their development results in overlaps and fragmented policy creation.
Although there is a growing awareness of the significance of cooperation between the
Government and the civil society, the Government and its agencies face challenges in the
process of establishment of an institutional dialogue with the civil society. Still, the fact that
there is a growing awareness of the need for better policy development and coordination is
encouraging.
4. Areas of cooperation between the Government and the CSO
CSOs in Serbia operate in a large number of different areas such as sports and culture,
education, health, politics, economic development. Their social roles differ depending on the
motives that drive individuals to association and forming this type of organizations. A number
of CSOs is primarily focused on provision of services financed to a considerable extent from
state funds. The second segment is more focused on fulfillment of specific objectives of its
members. Lastly, the third segment consists of organizations whose primary role is advocacy
for social changes. This being said, a significant number of organizations has several roles at
the same time, as in addition to providing certain types of services they also represent
interests of certain vulnerable categories and lobby for broader social changes.
Commenting on the role of civil society in Serbia, the European Committee for Economy and
Society is of the opinion that the Government of Serbia should be supported in its efforts to
strengthen the civil society. This would create a basis of a strong civil society as an
indispensable element of a mature democratic society. In addition, the cooperation with
CSOs has the following advantages:
European integration. This has been partially discussed in the Chapter 1 of the Report. It
should be noted that the experience of other countries notes the considerable contribution of
CSOs to the information campaigns about the EU, particularly in rural and underdeveloped
areas. Financial support should target development of the sector in this sphere. A
transparent pattern of grants from the state budget needs to be developed in order to support
other activities which are contributing to the overall progress of society.
Continuous democratization of society and observance of human rights. According to the
assessments conducted by EU19 and the World Bank20, the democratization index in Serbia
should significantly improve in the process of EU accession. In this context, the role and work
of CSOs is of paramount importance. Although the 2006 Constitution enshrines the values of
19 European Partnership for 2008, Official Journal of the European Union, 18 February 2008; Serbia 2007
Progress Report, Commission of the European Communities, November 2007
20
Country Partnership Strategy for the Republic of Serbia for the period 2008-2011, World Bank, November
2007
15
a modern and democratic society and observance of human rights, it has not been fully
implemented as yet in many areas: judicial reform is slow, access to information of public
interest is scant, functions and scope of ombudsman are inadequate, implementation of the
law protecting the rights of citizens only partial. More than 1300 cases of human rights
violations have been presented to the European Court of Human Rights, which is, inter alia,
the consequence of the non-functioning of the Constitutional Court for more than two years.
Fight against corruption. Although all the necessary laws have been adopted, limited
progress has been made in the fight against corruption which constitutes a serious problem
in Serbia. The Anti-Corruption Agency, the functionality of which is subject of different
opinions, has not been established. Proper financial control, transparent procedures and
public procurement monitoring, including the control role of the Parliament are far from
desirable. Furthermore, the members of Parliament themselves are occassionally parties to
financial abuses (fictitious transport and accommodation bills, etc). The problem of corruption
and the perception of its omnipresence reduces the chances of Serbia both economically
and investment-wise, for it is rated relatively low on the list of preferred destinations for
market investments as the foreign investors still believe it to be a high-risk country.21 This is
where CSOs can do a lot, publicly advocating for establishment of stronger mechanisms of
control of authorities and systematic monitoring of operation of state agencies.
Regional cooperation. The EU believes the role of Serbia in this process to be exceptionally
significant. To that effect, the CSOs may encourage dialogue of Serbia and other countries in
the region. The successful cooperation of CSOs may, in turn, inspire political leaders in the
region. Despite the ever improving contacts among the organizations in the region, the
cooperation has been slowed down by political obstacles and lack of funds. EU as the main
donor of cross-border cooperation programs indicates this problem in its reports22.
International cooperation. Key for future development of the civil society. The cooperation
and linkages with organizations of EU member states is particularly relevant for all
organizations dealing with human rights, environmental protection and gender equality. In
addition, the CSOs' role in foreign policy activities should not be underestimated. A more
intensive cooperation between the official diplomacy and „civil“ diplomacy may contribute to
advancement of Serbian foreign policy and have a positive impact of the European
integration process.
Improvement of the situation in local communities and of marginalized groups. Owing to a
greater flexibility and authentic non-profit motivation, the CSOs often manage to contribute to
the general quality and access to services at the local level by providing services to the
categories otherwise inaccessible to the state institutions – persons living with HIV/AIDS,
sexual workers, drug addicts, patients with terminal illnesses, stigmatized groups. Also,
different driving motives may result in promptness of CSOs to provide services in remote,
inaccessible rural areas where it is difficult to secutre even the sheer presence of public
services.
Public awareness and information campaigns. The advantage of cooperation with CSOs
relative to commercial companies may be their readiness to get involved into public
awareness raising and information campaigns relevant for quality provision of services. In
addition to provision of services, this type of CSOs' engagement also enhances their
accessibility. Furthermore, these campaigns strengthen the position of vulnerable groups in
the society and raise public awareness about particular social problems. There are many
people, members of marginalized groups which are excluded from all the social security
networks, who do not receive assistance due to lack of information, or because of their
inability to seek direct assistance for one reason or another. Bearing in mind that accessibility
21
Country Partnership Strategy for the Republic of Serbia for the period 2008-2011, World Bank, November
2007
22
European Partnership for 2008, Official Journal of the European Union, 18 February 2008; Serbia 2007
Progress Report, Commission of the European Communities, November 2007
16
of social services is an essential feature of a good social welfare system, as well as the fact
that services are often inaccessible to the most vulnerable categories such as Roma
population, persons with disabilities, etc, this advantage of civil sector is exceptionally
significant.23
Cooperation in the field of education. Experience thus far indicates that CSOs may contribute
significantly to the quality of formal and informal education. Professional training of youth
preparing them to enter the labor market, adult vocational training and advancement of
preschool and primary school curricula are the fields where the cooperation between the two
sectors may provide excellent results.
Capacity building, organizing various trainings and seminars. A change of professional
culture and attitudes of local government representatives and state sector employees is
required in order to ensure a higher level of their responsiveness to the citizens, marginalized
groups in particular and cooperation with CSOs. These changes are long-term, especially in
the areas where different practices are deeply rooted. Organizing various types of trainings
and seminars to advance knowledge of local and central government representatives, state
institutions and CSOs is a prerequisite of that. CSOs are well positioned to provide this type
of services.
Involvement of civil society may also contribute to better functioning of state agencies in
different areas and sectors and in all phases:
Benefits of cooperation between Government and CSOs
Development of
programmatic
measures and
activities
Insight into perspective
of particular target
groups.
Insight into situation in
local communities
(problems, needs and
resources).
Ownership
programmes
activities
of
Government.
of
and
the
Planning and
implementation
Мonitoring
Еvaluation
Realistic attitude to
planning – entails
knowledge of needs
and capacities at the
local level.
Stronger
accountability
of
authorities to citizens.
resource
Perspective
and
specific
knowledge
about target groups
(realistic
indicators,
facts
based
evaluation).
Expanding knowledge
of best practices.
Participatory,
qualitative approach
to evaluation.
Ensures
additional
resources (financial,
volunteer)
for
provision of services.
New methods and
ideas for provision of
services.
Reduced corruption.
Adequate
allocation.
Potential assistance
in demonstration and
verification of results.
Enhanced efficiency
in
provision
of
services.
CSOs involvement in implementation of Government programmes will contribute significantly
to raising the quality of services and reducing the costs of implementation. CSOs stand ready
to provide services also to the categories of beneficiaries not reached by anyone, and to
develop services that the centralized state would neither be able to identify nor
conceptualize. Engagement of volunteers, altruistic motives and primary focus on objectives
and results, sometimes even without adequate compensation, definitely give an enormous
advantage to the civil society. However, numerous prerequisites need to be put in place in
23
Role of Non-Governmental Organizations in Provision of Social Services (draft report), Gordana Matkovic,
Centre for Liberal Democratic Studies, Belgrade, 2008
17
order to develop such a sector and reach this- somewhat idealistic - concept of its
functioning.
Identification of mechanisms is not a one-way process. The issue is not only what the
Government can do, but also what is it that the Government and CSOs can do together. The
capacity and readiness of civil society organizations to get involved is but one of the factors
influencing the character of cooperation mechanisms, and this fact is to be particularly noted.
18
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SERBIA:
Starting from the present comparative and legal analysis and the analysis of situation in
Serbia, there are sufficient arguments to ascertain a need for an institutional mechanism of
cooperation between the Government and the CSOs. To that effect, and in view of the level
of development of the civil society and cooperation practice thus far, establishment of a
Government Office for Cooperation with the Civil Society represents an appropriate first step
in the right direction. Should the Government – following public discussion and
consultations with the civil society – opt for establishing the Office, the following should
be taken into consideration in particular:
 Establishing the Office must not jeopardize the existing best practices and
mechanisms of cooperation between individual ministries, other Government agencies and
CSOs, but should seek to advance this cooperation.
 Establishing the Office must not result in stateism of the civil society: although the
Office is, by virtue of its organization, part of the executive, its function should bring it nearer
to ombudsman – that is, it should be “on the side” of the civil society.
 The mandate of the Office and the principles of cooperation should be defined
flexibly, but explicitly, in order to avoid possible misunderstandings about its objectives and
its role, as well as its authority in cooperation with the civil society.
 The founding act should stipulate that the Office, inter alia, promotes basic
Constitutional rights and values (a society of equal opportunities, secularism, tolerance,
minority rights protection, etc).24
 The foundation act should identify the group of CSOs within the competence of the
Office, but also identify those CSOs which, due to the nature of their objectives and the
mandate of the Office, do not fall withing its scope of work.
 In cooperation with DACU within Ministry of Finance, the role of the Office in the
process of European integration, including the possibility of its participation in programming
IPA funds, needs to be defined.
 Due to the overall mandate that the Office is to have in cooperation with the civil
society, it would be desirable that it start operating as a new institution, rather than a
continuation of one of the current Government projects.
 The current, objective budgetary restrictions pose a challenge to the establishment of
the Office. Therefore, the possibility of donor funding for establishment and start of
functioning thereof must be explored.
 Croatian experience indicates the key aspect of selection of the head of office
(“nothing can start without an individual, nor exist without an institution”, Jean Monet). The
head of the Office should be a person experienced in working with the civil society and public
administration, versed in the functioning of large donors–and trusted by the civil society.
24
This recommendation might call for additional clarification. Namely this formulation is required because the
civil society in Serbia (and in other countries) is comprised of associations (registered and not registered) that
basically seek to establish non-democratic order, supremacy of one race, nation, religion, abandoning secularism,
etc. The recommendation recognizes the international legal committments, relevant judicial practice and
standards that a state must observe relative to the delivery of rights to free association but, on the other hand,
clearly stipulates that the state would support and harbour partnership relations only with the organizations that
observe and advocate for fundamental Constitutional rights and values.
19
APPENDIX 1: Proposal of overall competencies of the Office:

Initiate the adoption of regulations, other general instruments and public policy
documents relevant to the legal and tax-related status of civil society organizations
(CSO) and monitor and/or be responsible for the implementation of the regulations
and policies thereof.

Initiate dialogue with civil society on policy issues, in particular those in the immediate
mandate of a ministry of another Government agency.

Collect and distribute information relevant to CSOs, organize round tables,
conferences, trainings, seminars, workshops and study tours, publish publications
and undertake other measures and activities aiming at raising capacities and
sustainability of CSOs.

Informing the public on the process of cooperation between the Government and
CSOs, promotion of cooperation;

Coordinate and encourage cooperation between ministries, other Government
agencies and Local Government bodies with CSOs.

Conduct activities of education and professional advancement of the employed in
public administration and local government units, as well as other stakeholders, on
the issues falling in its mandate.

Provide logistic and other support to advisory Government bodies in terms of the
development of civil society.

Conduct activities relating to cooperation and exchange of experiences with similar
Government institutions abroad.

Participate in programming of EU pre-accession funds supporting civil society (IPA
Funds) and other, as required.

Participation in activities regarding the monitoring and evaluation of EU projects

Conduct other activities in its mandate.

Provide techical assistance for the preparation of application documents for programs
open for civil society organisations (particularly EU funds).
20