The legal framework provides guarantees against state interference in internal matters of associations, foundations, and other types of non-profit entities. CSOs are autonomous from the state and the law provides guarantees to regulate their internal structure and operating procedures.

Previously identified problematic provisions were not amended throughout the year. New legal solutions that presenteda potential threat to the freedom of association were adopted and/or in the process of their preparation. Firstly, the provisions of the Criminal Code were not changed. Article 122, paragraph 4 provides for liability by authorized persons, representatives of various organizational forms, although they do not perform any official duty or activities of public interest or use state funds. Secondly, at the end of September 2019, a new draft text of the law on lobbying was prepared with certain improvements, however, without any substantial changes of the problematic provisions. The first version of the Law contained numerous unclear provisions, mainly relating to the definition of what a lobbyist is and which activities are considered as lobbying. By this, the key principle of the LAF – participation in public life is put at risk, according to which the CSOs can freely express and promote their views and opinions on issues of their interest; can start initiatives, and can participate in public opinion formation and policymaking.

The legislation provides a partial protection to individuals and/or to groups operations from interference by third parties. The main institutions that provide protection are Commission for Protection Against Discrimination and the Ombudsperson.with the the police and the judicial institutions i.e. the courts as well as the public prosecution being also  relevant institutions.

The regulations on financial reporting and accounting rules consider the specific characteristics of the CSOs to a certain extent. According to the LAF, the obligation of the registered CSOs is to prepare the annual financial statements and submit them to the CRNM. Besides, CSOs are required to publish them on their website, or in another appropriate manner (e.g. publication in a daily newspaper), to make their annual performance reports and annual financial statements for the previous year publicly available by 30 April at the latest.

The legislation allows for the CSOs to generate income through economic activity. The LAF regulates the activity of associations and foundations, and when the activities of the organizations generate income, itshould be used to achieve the goals set out in their statute (including all organizations’ regular activities, including payroll costs). The conducting of economic activity is further regulated with labor and tax laws, laws in the area of obligations, payment operations, foreign exchange operations, and other laws.

The legislation allows CSOs the possibility to receive funding from foreign public or private sources. According to LAF, associations and foundations could seek and obtain funding from a variety of foreign sources to support their activities, without special requests and prior approval by the state. The organizations can receive funding from international bilateral (USAID, SDC, embassies and others) and multilateral sources (such as the EU), then individuals, corporations, and other sources. CSOs can receive funding from foreign sources without any restrictions (e.g. administrative or financial obligations, prior approvals, or channeling of funding via specific authorities).

CSOs can receive funding from individuals, corporations and other domestic sources without restrictions.. Dominant domestic sources of funding are government grants, membership fees, corporate and individual donations. The Law on Donations and Sponsorships in Public Activities plays a key role in stimulating donations from individuals and companies.

CSOs are engaged in economic activities, and the legislation is implemented without any violations reported. According to the survey, 41,1% (67) CSOs are engaged in economic activity. Of them, 10 CSOs coped with complex administrative requests; six CSOs faced complex rules for accountability (reporting, monitoring) and three CSOs tackled other difficulties: fear of lack of sustainability due to increased minimal salary and monopoly over certain services (lack of competition).

CSOs received foreign funding with minor difficulties.

The legal framework provides guarantees for exercising the right to freedom of assembly in the Constitution of the Republic of North Macedonia, and the key law is the Law on Public Assemblies (LPA) according to which the citizens have the right to spontaneous, simultaneous and counter-assembly, with no prior notice requirement. The LPA provides for clearly listed limitations on the places of gathering. The LPA has certain shortcomings which were not improved throughout the year: the obligations and responsibilities of the organizer of the rally are not clearly defined, high fines for the organizer in case of damages, foreigners need to ask for approval to be able to gather with severe penalties for non-compliance with the provisions.

By the end of 2019, an extensively amended and restrictive version of the LPA was prepared and shared for public consultations on ENER: a minimum of 50 people to hold an assembly, expanding the list of places where gatherings are restricted, prohibition for the  participants to cover their faces and head, and regulation  for holding an assembly between 06 and 23 h. Relevant CSOs were not consulted in the preparation of these measures, and after serious reactions from the public and CSOs on social media, the Government quickly reacted and withdrew the law.

The key law regulating the use of force in public assemblies is the Law on Police. During 2019, the Law on Police was not improved in areas which were identified as flaws: keeping video recording for 45 days and undertaking audio and video recording without notification.

CSOs were enabled and protected to hold numerous peaceful public gatherings with and without prior authorizations. Simultaneous, spontaneous and counter-assemblies have taken place. During 2019 a total number of 525 announced and 298 unannounced public gatherings were recorded by the Ministry of Interior Affairs. Most of the gatherings 67% (361 announced and 189 unannounced) aimed to express protest or opinion on issues which concerned certain groups of citizens, while 33% (164 announced and 109 unannounced) were rallies of political parties related to presidential elections and other activities of political parties. More than half of the announced (56%) and unannounced (55%) gatherings were held in Skopje.

The legal framework guarantees the right to freedom of expression to all. CSOs engaged in human rights and democracy promotion are allowed to speak freely and engage in advocacy. The freedom of expression is guaranteed through comprehensive legislation: The Constitution, The Law on Media, the Law on Broadcasting Activity, the Law on Civil Liability for Insult and Defamation, as well as the Law on Free Access to Public Information.

No significant progress was made during the year in the legal framework regulating the freedom of expression, in particular, to change the shortcomings identified in the Urgent Reform Priorities.

Following the global and regional trends of fake news and disinformation campaigns, the government has announced and prepared an Action Plan to tackle the issue of disinformation and fake news and the civil society was invited to take part. The response by the journalist organizations to these developments was that the government should allow for self-regulation (for which  several activities were undertaken already by relevant organizations). Despite this pledge for self-regulation, the action group from the Government began its activities.

The legislation provides for limitations of hate speech. The key legal act is the Law on Civil Liability for Insult and Defamation which does not require the need to obtain permission to speak publicly or deliver presentation/lecture; and there is no requirement that publications of organizations must be pre-approved. The law was not amended throughout the year, even though indications were given in the Urgent Reform Priorities document stating that the number of cases of libel in courts, mostly targeting journalists, should be reduced by introducing measures.

In practice, there was progress towards respecting the freedom of expression, particularly when it comes to media outlets and improvement of the climate for journalism. The country was ranked 95 in the 2019 World Press Freedom index, rising 14 places compared to 2018. However, journalists were still a target for hostility and threats, and a culture of impunity of the attacks over them persists.

The free access to information, freedom to receive and impart information are guaranteed in the Constitution, and further elaborated in legal acts such as the Law on Interception of Communications, the Law on Electronic Communications and the Law on Criminal Procedure, the Law on Media, the Law on Audio and Audiovisual Media Services, the Law on Protection of Privacy, etc.  Despite the need for comprehensive changes, there was no significant progress during the year. The legal framework contains certain guarantees against illegal monitoring of communication channels. In regards to the state of protection of personal data, the system is partially functional since May 2019 as the Direction for protection of personal data has failed to assign a new director and deputy director, which has other relevant consequences over the work of the institutions.

There are very few cases in practice where restrictions are imposed over CSOs on accessing any source of information.

The progressive tax reform introduced at the end of 2018, included adoption of amendments in two laws relevant for CSOs, the Law on Profit Tax and the Law on Personal Income Tax. However, during 2019, one part of the legal solutions of the progressive tax reform was “suspended for the next three years” by the new Minister of Finance. Fortunately, there were no changes in regard to the provisions concerning CSOs. Namely, CSOs are not subjects to the Law on Profit Tax and the new Law on Personal Income Tax exempts them in respect of the compensation paid tovolunteers,  all accommodation, food and transportation costs for attendees of  events organized by the CSOs, as well as  travel expenses for attending educational activities and events by educational institutions and organizations abroad.

In addition, the Law on Value Added Tax (VAT) was amended and became more favorable for CSOs. Namely, with the amendment all taxpayers (including CSOs), whose total turnover  exceeded 2 million MKD (approx. 32,000 EUR) in the past calendar year or whose total turnover is anticipated to exceed the amount at the beginning of the performance of the business activity or to exceed the amount during the year, shall be obliged to register for VAT. The previous treshhold was significantly lower, 1 million MKD (approx. 16,000 EUR) and presented a burden to CSOs that aimed to engage in economic activity.

Finally, the grants and donations from foreign donors are VAT exempted, with the precondition of going throughthe procedure of registering the project in the Central Donor Assistance Base led by the Secretariat of European Affairs. The VAT exemptions are the most used tax exemptions.

The Law on Donations and Sponsorships in the Public Activities (LDSPA) provides tax incentives for individual and corporate donations to CSOs. According to LDSPA, an individual who donates funds can deduct  the calculated, but not paid personal income tax, or can return the paid tax calculated  on the basis of its annual tax return in the amount of the donation, but not more than 20% of the donor’s annual tax debt, or 390 EUR the most. The enterprises can use tax benefits amounting to 5% in case of a donation and 3% in case of a sponsorship. The Unit for Cooperation with NGOs informed the Council for Cooperation with andDevelopment of the Civil Society that a local NGO Konekt, together with the Ministry of Finance is in the final phase of preparation amendments to the LDSPA, to improve its functioning (complicated administrative procedure, determining public benefit on specific donation/sponsorship, etc.).

Individual and corporate giving is insufficiently practiced, particularly towards the civil sector. According to the survey, 24% of the CSOs receive funding from individual donors, and 18% from corporate ones. The administrative procedure for tax incentives is not supportive.

1.1.1. Establishment of and Participation in CSOs

The legislation contains certain provisions for state support for institutional development, project support and co-financing of EU funded projects, usually targeting segments or sub-sectors of civil society. A few legal documents provide the basis for the decentralized mechanism for the distribution of public funds to CSO that exists with major shortcomings. Key laws and bylaws are LAF, Law on Execution of Budget, Law on Games of Chance and Entertainment Games, Decision on the distribution of income from games of chance and entertainment games Criteria for distribution of income from games of chance and entertainment games, Code of Good Practice for Financial Support of Associations and Foundations. Other laws also regulate some aspects of state support in different areas such as sports, culture, health and so on.

The legal framework regarding public funding for CSOs was not substantially improved throughout the year. The measures related to the comprehensive public funding reform provided in the new Strategy are expected by the first trimester of 2020. During the year, high-level efforts were dedicated to the issue of state funding at  a CSO organized conference, where the then-Prime minister Zaev confirmed strongly the willingness of the Government to improve the existing model.    

The budget allocation mechanism for CSOs is decentralized. The main budget expenditure linefor CSOs,which is 463 – Transfers to Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), continues to cause confusion since the greatest budget allocation from that line goes topolitical parties and sports clubs. The confusion arises due to a lack of public access to the amount of funds allocated per sub-items in the budget (or final account) published by the Ministry of Finance. In addition, other budget linesare used to allocate  funds by different state institutions such as 464 – Different transfers.

The 2019 budget funding on the central level, was allocated through nine different state institutions (without the Ministry of Defense as in 2018). Those were: General Secretariat of the Government, Ministry of Economy, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Health (MH), Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, Ministry of Culture (MC), Ministry of Environment and Spatial planning (MESP), Agency for Youth and Sports and Fund for Innovations.

The strategic approach in granting budget funds to the associations and foundations is a legal  obligation of the state institutions as per: Law on Budget, LAF, Law on Games of Chance and Entertaining Games,  Code, Decision on the Criteria and Procedures for Distribution of the Funds for Financing the Program Activities of the Associations and Foundations from the Budget. Different institutions prepare numerous strategic documents which consider public funding for CSOs: Program for financing the program activities of associations and foundations, Strategic Plan of the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy (2020-2022), the National Strategy for the development of culture, Strategic Plan of the Ministry of Health,  Open data strategy, Strategic Plan of the Ministry of Education and Science,  Strategic Plan of the Agency for Youth and Sports, National Strategy on Women Entrepreneurship, and many others. 

The procedures prescribed for CSO participation in all phases of the public funding cycle have shortcomings. Namely, the Code stipulates clear procedures concerning applying and  implementation of projects by CSOs, but it does not on consultations over funding priorities, nor participation in the selection of projects, monitoring and evaluation.  

According to the survey, 25% of CSOs agree that they take part in the process of setting up priorities for state funding, 65.5% of CSOs disagree.

State funding is still almost a non-recognizable source of income for CSOs and only available for a limited number of organizations. The lack of available funding is a serious challenge for CSOs. Within, the budget item 463-Transfer to NGOs, according to the data provided by state institutions a total amount of 512 million MKD (approx. 8.3 million EUR) were planned as financial support for NGOs. This amount differs from the one published within the country budget, according to which the planned amount is 726 million MKD (approx. 11.8 million EUR). The average planned amount per CSOs  totals to 180,432 MKD (approx. 2.922 EUR). Furthermore, the share of public funding in the total sectoral income is 15.98 % (including municipalities); and 11.23 % (only the funding on central level) for 2018. The Government mostly provides annual project support for the CSOs, however, there are certain forms of support which can be considered as a mix between institutional and project support, such as the funding of 17% allocated via the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy (MLSP), and 22% via the Agency for Youth and Sports (AYS) (of the total amount available for CSOs for 2018). There are also co-financing examples distributed through the Ministry of Economy, the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Local Self-government, but the amounts are not clearly presented. The biggest share of state funding for CSOs is allocated throughthe MLSP and the AYS. According to the latest available data, Government funding although increased by 5% in 2018 compared to 2017, it  was cut by 13% in 2019, compared to 2018.

The legal framework stipulating  a procedure for state funding, contains certain provisions on transparency and accountability in various laws (Law on Execution of Budget, Decision on the Criteria and Procedures for Fund Distribution for program activities of the associations and foundations from the budget and the Code). There was no progress in the preparation of a law to standardize the procedure of allocation of public funds, as it is set  for 2020. Numerous legal acts contain provisions on different parts of the process for the distribution of public funding. In terms of announcing the grant procedure- Law on Execution of Budget, Law on Environment, Law on Culture and more specifically when it comes to publishing an open call for a specific type: Law on Sports, Law on Games of Chance and Entertainment Games, Law on Social Protection. When it comes to the decision-making part, the criteria and procedure for selection of the CSOs are set in several legal acts (Code, MLSP, AYS). Furthermore, various legal acts prescribe the  the grounds for establishing expert bodies (commissions, council) and for assessing and deciding on  on applicants, but fail to provide sufficient details.  Finally, the publication of the results on the websites of the state institutions is regulated in the LAF, Code, and the Law on Culture.

The majority of state institutions that allocate funds to CSOs fail to provide publicly available information on the procedures for funding and information on funded projects. Those that provide are not sufficiently detailed but cover basic details (Unit for cooperation with NGOs, Ministry of culture, Fund for innovations, AYS and MLSP). All state institutions that allocate funds publish open calls for proposals online.

A series of events which occurred during 2019 increased transparency and accountability of the process of distribution of public funds to CSOs. For the first time,  state institutions submitted data on the allocation of funds to CSOs on the national and local levels. The  data was later published as a material for one of the session of the Council for Cooperation  and Development of the Civil Society (hereinafter: Council). Secondly,the names of all the recipients of public funds (including NGOs) were published on the web-site Open Finance by the Ministry of Finance. Finally, the information on the entire assessment process and selection of results on the funding from the General Secretariat of the Government for CSOs for 2019, was published on the website of the Unit^.

The Council appointed two representatives from CSOs to conduct oversight and prepare a report on the process. Based on their report there were concrete conclusions and recommendations on the need for further improvement of  the evaluation process and that this oversight is a good practice. Namely, they reported that the process should have been better organized with more evaluators, and even though the Unit for Cooperation with NGOs can lead this process, there is still a need for improved technical skills and digital solutions. They also highlighted the lack of possibilities for grants to smaller and newer organizations from different regions (other than Skopje).

Some  state bodies that allocate funds to CSOs failed to follow the procedure and to apply it in a harmonized way.

There are legal acts that provide certain measures for accountability, monitoring and evaluation. According to the Law on Budget, every expenditure and transfer from the budget must be corroborated with credible accounting documentation. The grounds why reporting is needed is given in the LAF, according to which, when receiving funds from the Budget,  a financial report is to be submitted to the relevant state institution. Finally, various regulation provides an obligation to submit a report within a month following  the end of the project: the annual decisions of the General Secretariat of the Government for distribution of budget funds, Law on Environment, Law on Culture, Law on Disability Organizations, Law on Sports, Code and in the Rulebook of AYS. The evaluation of the effects resulting from the  implemented activities of the CSOs, which were funded by the budgetary grants is prescribed with the Code, reading that  every institution should evaluate the utilization of the funds and the results achieved based on the submitted reports and propose recommendations.

The legislation does not prescribe specific and proportionate sanctions for CSOs that misuse public funds. The Criminal Code considers the legal representatives of CSOs to be public officials, thus the same sanctions apply. The Code does not suggest sanctions, rather regular monitoring of the spending and in case of failure to fulfill  the contractual obligations the funds must be returned to the institution. Monitoring is implemented rarely and for the sake of providing information to the Government.

The field visits are rare and organized mainly by MLSP and FITR. Moreover, the General Secretariat of the Government, engages in monitoring, as it is an element of the Agreement they make when awarding grants and in accordance with the Code. According to the survey, out of the 84 CSOs that received state support, the projects of 14% CSOs were not subject of monitoring; 25.2% CSOs were subject of monitoring. Then, for 33.7% CSOs the monitoring was carried out following predefined criteria, and for 4.3% it was not. Finally, for 23.3% CSOs the monitoring visits were announced, while for 8.6% CSOs they were not.

The legislation provides the basis for the allocation of non-financial support to CSOs. The key law is the Law on Usage and Disposal of Government Owned Items, which stipulates that  movable and immovable property owned by the government bodies is granted following a government decision to use or transfer the right of ownership, with or without compensation to CSOs. CSOs can also receive real estate for temporary or permanent usage, with or without compensation, and use movable items owned by the Government. Yet, there are no provisions with criteria for the transparent allocation of the non-financial support. In addition, the Law on Local Self-Government determines that the ownership of the municipalities can be transferred to other entities via public auction.

There are a few cases of CSOs that use non-financial state support. According to the survey, 16 CSOs were granted non-financial support by the state in 2019 (office for events, work, training and equipment). Also, according to the data from Government sessions 18 CSOs were identified as receiving movable items.

Out of the total number of respondents (163), 24 CSOs disagree that the requests for non-financial support to the state are easy to fulfill, 25 CSOs agree, and 35 CSOs do not know. CSOs do not perceive themselves as being treated in an equal manner as the  other actors when it comes to access state non-financial resources. Namely, 35 CSOs do not agree, while six CSOs agree and 43 CSOs do not know if they have an advantageous position compared to other actors. Concerning the fairness of the allocation of the non-financial support, according to the survey, seven CSOs agree that decisions are fair, 32 CSOs disagree, while 45 CSOs said they do not know. Furthermore, in terms of being critical to the Government, 12 CSOs agree that critical CSOs can access non-financial support; 25 CSOs do not agree and 47 CSOs do not know.

The legislation enables CSOs to employ people, and there have been certain improvements in recognizing the sector as an employer by the State. The existing laws and policies apply to CSOs as employers, yet they do not reflect the specific nature of CSO operation (Law on Labour Relations, Law of Employment and Insurance in Case of Unemployment) and there is the unequal treatment when it comes to benefits available for businesses (Law on the Employment of disabled persons. Furthermore, the civil sector is not represented in the employers’ organizations and is unclear  which collective agreement covers it.

Government policies on increasing employment are focused on the business. Namely, the 2016-2020 National Employment Strategy only lists CSOs as implementers of measures, rather than users. Yet, important steps were taken to build supportive measures, and there were certain Programs and measures for employment available for CSOs in 2019: subsidizing salaries (since 2017 the CSOs are a special type of legal entity that can apply to use this measure) and employment and growth of legal entities (support for new employment).

Employment data for the civil society sector is collected and published by the CRNM. The data is extracted from the financial reports of the CSOs submitted annually (number of full-time employees, expenditures for salaries, etc.). There is still no data available on part-time employees, people with short-term contracts and volunteers. The total number of employees in associations and foundations according to the CRNM is 1,645 (0.21% of all employed in the country in 2018).

There are few cases of CSOs using different incentive programs for employment, as well as CSOs that face minor difficulties in receiving support from the state in regards to employment.

According to the survey, eight CSOs used government support through programs for stimulation of employment. Furthermore, according to the Agency for Employment, of over 2.500 users of active programs and measures for employment from the Operational plan for 2019, only 3.28% (82) of them are CSOs.

The Konekt`s study provides further insight, concluding that CSOs are insufficiently informed on the possibilities and the duration of the call for support, as each of the measures is available during certain part of the year. Furthermore, very few CSOs were able to use the incentives for opening  new employment positions, mainly because ,due to their lack of long-term funding, they may not be able to continue to pay the salaries once  the state support ends.

The legislation protects the volunteers and their organizations, and enables spontaneous volunteering, with certain inconsistencies. The key law is the Law on Volunteering which regulates the rights and obligations of volunteers and organizers of volunteering, with clearly defined contractual relations and protection. Other relevant laws are the Law on Labour Relations, Law on Transformation into Full Time Employment, Law on Foreigners and the Law on Employment and Work of Foreigners.  Furthermore, a new Law on Internship was adopted in 2019 providing a distinction between the concept of internship and volunteerism. The law stipulates conditions for interns, such as being unemployed and younger than 34 with at least primary education completed. The law regulates the procedure and conditions for internship, the rights and obligations of the intern and the employer.

There are certain incentives for both volunteers and organizations and state-supported programs for the development and promotion of volunteering. According to the Law on Volunteerism, volunteers are entitled to tax-free reimbursement of costs associated with volunteering (food, transportation and training), which is a minimum of 15% of average gross salary in the country. Also, CSOs can access incentives if they engage interns, through the employment programs that subsidize the involvement of interns.

Few CSOs have used government support for volunteerism. According to the survey, eleven CSOs used government support through programs that stimulate volunteerism in CSOs. Also, three CSOs praised this process within the Agency.

Even though the country has no national strategy nor functional council on voluntarism,  the issues of promotion and  development of voluntarism, as well as the need to amend the legislation and the new National Strategy for Promotion and Development of Volunteering 2020 – 2025 were discussed at an event organized by CSOs and other institutions. There is neither accurate data on the number of volunteers in CSOs, nor on the number of voluntary hours implemented in CSO.

Volunteerism is not very high on the political agenda yet, which different studies point out. The majority (76.1%) of young people between 15-29 years of age have never volunteered, and only 26.5% have. Another study on youth finds that 90% of the respondents were never part of a civic or non-governmental organization. According to World Giving Index, only 8% of the citizens volunteered their time to an organization (in the past 10 years).

Very few CSOs consider  the administrative procedure for engaging volnteers to be  complicated and costly. Thus the process of attracting volunteers or becoming one presents a minor challenge to the work of CSOs. According to the survey, 81% of CSOs have engaged volunteers in 2019.

The legislation allows for non-formal education and for CSOs to take part in the informal education system, however, with certain difficulties. There are limited examples of CSO-related topics being integrated in informal education. The legal basis for regulation of the non-formal education by CSOs is provided in numerous laws, such as the Law on Adult Education, the Law on Bureau for Education Development, the Law on Procurement, etc. By the end of 2019, the Ministry of Education and Science published the new Draft-law on Adult Education for electronic consultations, aiming to include: validation of non-formal and informal education, improved process of verification of special programs for adults’ education, etc. Throughout the year, the Economic Chamber of Macedonia expressed concerns that the procedures of the existing Law on Adult Education are burdensome and rigid. Furthermore, the non-formal and the adult education are key strategic areas in the  Comprehensive Strategy on education (2018-2025) and the action plan . In addition, the Strategic Plan of the Bureau for Development 2020-2022, in one of its key results envisages a development of a new concept for civic education with concrete activities to be undertaken.

Subjects related to civil society are included in the official curriculum in both primary and secondary levels of education. At university, students are obliged to undertake an internship, which is differently regulated under each institution. It includes the possibility for students to undertake an internship in a CSO. Also, as per the  civic education, discriminatory content was discovered in various curriculum  textbooks, which were publisheda decade ago. Following the reactions of CSOs and concerned citizens, the Government placed the materials on the list of materials that needed revision and published it on the Ministry for Education and Science website.

There are several cases of CSOs being certified as providers of training and non-formal education by the state. According to the data provided by the Ministry of Education and Science for 2019, a total number of 266 institutions are implementing separate programs on adult education, nine (9) of them are associations that work and implement a total number of 16 programs on adult education, in three different cities (two CSOs are from Veles and Strumica and the rest from Skopje).

Journalism is an example of how non-formal education can play an important role. Students interested in journalism are supported by the School of Journalism and Public Relations (SJPR), the Democracy Lab – School for young journalists, and many other CSOs that provide short courses on increasing investigative journalism skills, etc. thus filling the gaps of the formal education which needs reforming.

The implementation of the Strategy for Cooperation with and Development of the Civil Society and an Action Plan for 2018-2020 noted progress. Information concerning the implementation of the measures and activities is regularly collected and published by the Unit for Cooperation with NGOs, and the Council is engaging in quarterly oversight. Progress in the main development measures for the f civil society is still slow (reform of public funding, individual and corporate donations, social services and volunteerism), as part of those are envisaged for 2020.

CSOs undertook different activities that contributed to the realization of the Action plan. Even though CSOs are not listed as implementers, as this is to be understood as an obligation of the relevant institutions, their contribution is mentioned in the report on the implementation.

CSOs are included in the monitoring of the implementation of the Strategy, through the Council the mandate of which is to follow the implementation. Namely, at the Council sessions, there were regular discussions concerning the implementation of the Strategy and reviews of the Unit reports on its implementation. The realization of the Strategy for 2018 was reviewed at the 10^th session of the Council. It was concluded  that the report did not reflect the situation, and recommended quarterly reporting on the implementation of the Strategy. Then, the Council reviewed the quarterly report (July-September 2019) on the implementation of the Strategy on the 16^th session (October 2019), however, the content of the discussions and the feedback by the members concerning this report were not reflected in the minutes.

Three main institutions and mechanisms are responsible for facilitation of the cooperation with CSOs: the Council for Cooperation with and Development of the Civil Society, the Unit for Cooperation with NGOs, and the network of public servants for monitoring the implementation of the Strategy, consisting of 18 state institutions. The main mechanism, the Council as a cross-sectoral advisory body, remained functional.

Throughout the year, the Rules of procedure of the Council were changed twice. The first amendments included two important changes. The first one related to the efforts of the Council to address the issue of absence at the sessions and the second one added a new chapter which regulated the procedure for nomination of representatives from the civic sector in consultative bodies and working groups. The second step is worrisome since the Decision does not provide a legal base for the Council to introduce this task as part of the mandate within the Rules of procedure, and to engage in the execution of requests from government bodies (such as a request for nomination), but rather  give advice. The procedure provides for certain deadlines and online publishing of  calls for proposals; however, it is the Council that eventually votes and makes the decision on the representative who should take part in these groups/bodies. How it affects the work of the Council is yet to be analyzed, as the more time is dedicated to discuss nominations, the less time is left  to deal  with the key measures of the Strategy leaving this in the hands of the CSOs rather than the Council. The second amendment to the Rules introduced a new chapter on correspondence sessions, as a way of electronic voting for issues for which physical presence is not necessary, aiming amongst other, to tackle the lack of regular participation at sessions. However, it is unclear whether the Council discussed the reasons for unsatisfactory participation, before providing solutions.

The Council has been actively functioning since April 2018 and has held a total number of 18 sessions by the end of 2019, going over the minimum legal requirement for holding at least four sessions a year. During 2019 a total of 10 sessions were held. From the available minutes of the sessions, most of the items on the agenda of the Council, 16 out of 56 total items during 2019, were aiming to improve the cooperation and dialogue between the government and civil society, by nominating CSO representatives to participate in different government bodies and  (2 out of those 16) to take part at events.

Then, 16 topics for discussion on the agenda were dedicated on the improvement of the internal functioning of the Council. Then followed  the discussions on sharing information on different aspects of state funding (6) together with four items on the agenda in total, including presentation of the on state funding for CSOs.

Almost every session the Council has placed certain recommendations and/or requests for different institutions. The requests made bythe Council to the Unit for Cooperation with NGOs were all accepted and implemented on time. The Council directed other requests  to several institutions, including MF (organized consultations on taxes), SEA (share draft-guide for registration of project and provide less time, 10 days for the duration of the procedure), MJ (timeline on possible changes in LAF) were all accepted and implemented. However, an important recommendation which  was not considered referred to the  the Government’s increase of the funding from the Secretariat, from 12 million MKD (approx. 194,000 EUR) to 60 million MKD (approx. 971,700 EUR) for CSOs. Other adjustments to the funding program were made.

The regular participation at the sessions between the CSOs members and state institutions was a challenge. When it comes to participation of other CSOs, the practice shows that this has not been used as an opportunity. Namely, outside  the Council, only two representatives of CSOs took part (one from the member organizations of the Council), and one independent expert. When it comes to regular participation of the CSOs at the sessions of the members of the Council every session had  a representative absent. Namely, out of 10 sessions, there were more recorded absences on the side of civil servants (six members on average), than on the side of the members of the CSOs (four members on average). At two sessions, seven representatives from CSOs were absent, and at two sessions six CSOs were absent). The highest number of absent members in one session was noted at the15th session when nine civil servants and seven CSO were absent.

According to the survey and concerning the information flow between the Council and CSOs, , 61.3 % of CSOs are informed about the work of the Council, while 38.7% are not.

The legal framework  clearly defines the standards on the involvement of CSOs in all policy-making processes. Various documents provide the basis for the involvement of CSOs in policy-making and legislation preparation at the level of the Government and at the level of the Parliament (Constitution, Law for Referendum and Other Forms of Direct Vote of the Citizens, Law on the Government, Law on Organization and Operation of State Administrative Bodies, Rulebook of the Government, Strategy for Cooperation of the Government with the Civil Sector, Code of Good Practices for Participation of the Civil Sector in Policy-Making Process, Methodology for Regulatory Impact Assessment, and the Guidelines for the ministries on the way to proceed in the process of regulatory impact assessment).

The Rulebook of the Government stipulates  that the draft-laws is to be  published on the website of the line ministry and the ENER.  Furthermore, the Rulebook provides to the CSOs and the general public a minimum of 20 days for consultations of the draft-acts.

Part of the state institutions continued to invite and involve the public/CSOs to comment on laws and policy initiatives at an early stage and with sufficient time to formulate and provide opinion. There is a significant increase in respecting the deadlines for electronic consultations, and in general in the continuous involvement in all key legislation by using different ways of consultations (working groups, e-consultations, wider consultations, Council, etc.).

Namely, according to the data gathered from the ENER monitoring for 2019, a total number of 228 laws that were drafted at the Government sessions were reviewed in the Parliament. Out of them 49,6% were published on ENER for public consultations and only for four (4) draft-laws  the minimal deadline of 20 days for consultations was not respected.

However, the results from the survey show a slightly unenthusiastical image, that almost a third of the CSOs (26.38%) agree that CSOs are involved in early-stage  of law preparation and creation of policies, then, 38.65% CSOs do not agree and 34.97% do not know.

Free access to information, freedom to access and transmit information is a basic freedom and right provided in the Constitution and operationalized with the Law on Free Access to Public Information . A new Law on Free Access to Public Information ofthe was prepared together with CSOs in a participatory manner, adopted in May 2019. Systematic changes included the creation of a new Agency to enable quicker and better access to information and increased transparency and accountability of the providers of information; yet, it is not functional. Political parties were added as the holders of public information. The new Law further prescribes a clear procedure to access public information, with defined limitations, and a shortened deadline (from 30 days to 20 days). In addition, sanctions for civil servants/units for breaching the legal requirements on access to public information are provided. Such sanctions are applied incase an official or a  head of unit fails to appoint public officials to deal with free access to public information and/or fails to inform the public concerning their right to free access. Furthermore, several reasons listed in the Law, may be the reason for a 250 EUR sanction.

Most of the institutions publish some of the draft and/or adopted documents on their websites and/or on a centralized online platform. There is a centralized unified portal ENER where all draft laws subject to the consultation are published and where everyone can post comments and opinions. The ministries lack active publishing of information.

In practice, there are examples of CSOs that use the opportunity to access information, and the majority receive responses, mostly within the deadline and in a clear form. However, when it comes to providing reasons for refusals, the explanation is not provided to majority of them , nor is the procedure for filing a complaint.

The Code of Good Practices for the civil sector’s participation in the policy-makingprocesses stipulates  working groups established by the Government which would, inter alia, serve as an instrument of participation. ). However, there is no standardized mechanism for selection of representatives in cross-sector bodies. There are different legal acts that require establishment of  Councils, committees, etc. which would oblige  CSOs to be included in the mechanism.

The most relevant document is the Decision for Establishment of  Cooperation and Development Council as the main mechanism for cooperation which was prepared with CSOs participation. According to the Decision, the representatives of CSOs are selected within the sector, through a transparent and open procedure,  and are nominated to represent the areas they work on.  

During2019, the Unit for Cooperation with NGOs for the needs of the Council, published several open calls on replacement  of representatives of CSOs.  It abided by the  the entire procedure, publishing the final results with sufficient details. Also, there were numerous examples when  different institutions (MLSP, MJ) invited interested organizations to join an established working group on Laws or other legal acts.

In 2019, a questional decision with no legal grounds in the Decision expanded the mandate of the Council with one of the amendments in the Council’s Rulebook. The amendment stipulated executory task for the Council on Government’s request – meaning, it could start a procedure for selecting CSO representatives wotking in various fields to take part in the working groups/bodies or events.

There are numerous cases when CSO representatives are invited in the decision-making bodies working on  issues and policies which are relevant to the civil society. According to the survey, over a third 35.6% of CSOs took part in the work of a cross-sectoral bodies, including working groups (48), Council (5), commissions (4), coordinative bodies (4), inter-sectoral group (2), committee (1), advisory body (1), other (9), which  were part of institutions such as MLSP, MH, ME, AYS, Agency for the Realization of the Rights of the Communities, MC, the Government, Parliament, Cabinet of Minister without portfolio, MISA, MESP, Ministry of Agriculture.

Existing legislation allows CSOs to provide services in various areas including education, healthcare, social services and creates basic preconditions. The LAF, enables associations and foundations to perform public authorization by transferring competences from a state institution, municipal bodies, Skopje municipalities, the City of Skopje and other public authorization bodies.

The three key laws in the area of service provisions were amended and improved in favor of associations and foundations. Firstly, the new Law on Public Procurement as the key law regulating the manner and procedures for providing contracts for public procurement aimed to improve shortcomings in the system of public procurement, and improved two key issues: besides the lowest price as the criterion for awarding tenders, other criteria  were added and the e-auction became optional. Other measures related to increasing the transparency of the process were adopted. Secondly,  the Law on Social Protection , according to which an association (but not foundation) may perform certain activities of social protection determined by this law  and if registered to  work in social care, was amended in a participatory manner. Thus, the changes included clear support and partnership with associations included in providing  social service. Then, the Law on Free Legal Aid stipulates a possibility for the involvement of CSOs in providing pretriallegal aid. In 2019, a new law was adopted offering improved legal protection for citizens and introducing novelty and improvements in the process of funding the associations and the foundations which provide legal aid, by receiving  grants from the Ministry of Justice. Finally, the Strategy recognized the importance and the potential of CSOs  by setting measures for development of the models for cooperation with CSOs which provide services in  health care, education and culture, which have no progress in their implementation yet.

There are cases of CSOs being awarded contracts for services in various areas in competition with other providers. According to the survey, 11 CSOs have received contracts for state service provision by the state. Also, the MLSP provided 151.5 million MKD (approx. 2,453,000 EUR) for support of CSOs in the field of social protection for different projects. Namely, three associations were selected: aily center for children in the street, psychological-social support of children at social risk, safe accommodation for victims of gender-based violence  and early treatment of children with autism. Furthermore, the funds from games of chance and entertainment games (70 million MKD or approx. 1,133,000 EUR) support: the annual program of the Red Cross, National Council of Disability Organizations of Macedonia, national disability organizations and the national coordination body for equal rights of persons with disabilities, as well as support for associations that help victims of family violence. Other examples of CSOs engaged in service provision include: supporting people at social risk to obtain daily meal “Site siti” (cooperation between MLSP and social entrepreneurship initiatives), daily center for Down Syndrome, centers for victims of sexual violence, NGO Poraka Nova-day care centers for people with special needs. There are still very few examples of CSOs being involved in developing and evaluating  services. However, when it comes to social and health services (HIV, tuberculosis, etc.) the MLSP and Ministry of Health have indeed worked with CSOs in developing the programs and support.

An important concept is the social entrepreneurship which is still in the introductory and institutionalizing stage. As part of the regulation it was increasingly used in 2019. The existing legal framework (LAF, the Law on Employment of  persons with disabilities, the Law on Cooperatives) enables the entities to participate in the social economy, however, it does not provide appropriate support. Namely, the first social enterprises in the country date since around 2008, with CSOs leading the way. The process of drafting a Law on Social Entrepreneurship restarted and the final draft text was set to be finalized by June 2019, together with a Strategy for social entrepreneurship which should have been finalized by November 2019.

The legal framework provides partial funding for basic social services provided by CSOs. The amount/percentage of allocation of funding for basic services is a separate process and depends on the subject matter However, with the social and health services being the most developed, at least funds can be obtained  from the budget planned for the following years and under the expenditure budget line intended for institutional programs.

CSOs do not receive sufficient funding to cover the basic costs of the services they are contracted to provide. According to the survey, 11 CSOs responded that their organization applied to provide public services, one CSO said the funding they received was sufficient to cover basic costs, six CSOs said it was not and four CSOs said that they did not know. The services are dominantly funded with foreign funds or other sources.  

There are no significant legal barriers for CSOs to receive funding for the provision of public services. However, there must be a complete legal review of the possibilities and challenges CSOs are faced with when providing services. According to the Strategy, such review  to be  conducted by the Ministry of Health, Ministry of Culture, Ministry of Justice and the AYS, was planned for the last quarter of 2019, but it was not realized. Furthermore, MLSP is implementing a project in which they will work on preparing a coherent legal framework on modernization and decentralization of the social services.

The legal framework provides partial funding for basic social services provided by CSOs. The amount/percentage of allocation of funding for basic services is a separate process and depends on the subject matter However, with the social and health services being the most developed, at least funds can be obtained  from the budget planned for the following years and under the expenditure budget line intended for institutional programs.

CSOs do not receive sufficient funding to cover the basic costs of the services they are contracted to provide. According to the survey, 11 CSOs responded that their organization applied to provide public services, one CSO said the funding they received was sufficient to cover basic costs, six CSOs said it was not and four CSOs said that they did not know. The services are dominantly funded with foreign funds or other sources.  

There are no significant legal barriers for CSOs to receive funding for the provision of public services. However, there must be a complete legal review of the possibilities and challenges CSOs are faced with when providing services. According to the Strategy, such review  to be  conducted by the Ministry of Health, Ministry of Culture, Ministry of Justice and the AYS, was planned for the last quarter of 2019, but it was not realized. Furthermore, MLSP is implementing a project in which they will work on preparing a coherent legal framework on modernization and decentralization of the social services.

Different laws provide different processes of monitoring of the spending. According to the Law on Public Procurement the control over the use and spending of public procurement funds is done by the State Audit Office. All institutions and users of the budget funds are subject to control by the State audit. According to the MLSP, as part of provisions in the Law on Social Protection, the Ministry executes oversights over the work of the CSOs that use funds from the Ministry. Various articles in the Law, provide details on how the process is organized. When it comes to monitoring quality standards, according to the Law on Social Protection, the monitoring procedure for the services provided by contractors is undertaken by the Institute for Social Affairs, which has different profiles of staff with various expertise to assess the quality standards (depending on which issue of social protection is being monitored).

There are very few examples of service providers being subject to excessive control. According to the survey, 11 CSOs applied to provide of public services. Two of them said the state control of their work was excessive, four CSOs that that’s not the case, while five said they do not know. Then, four CSOs said that the control (on the spot check) of their work is done with prior noticeby the public officials. Five CSOs said the criteria for accountability set up by the state during the service provision are clear, two CSOs said that that’ was not the case, and four did not know.