NORTH MACEDONIA

Implemented by:

 

 

 

 

 

 

2018

 

 

2019

 

 

Number of registered organizations

10.171 (CRNM)10.710 (CRNM)
 

 

Relevant changes in the legal framework

(1) New Law on Profit tax

 

 

(2) Strategy of the Government of the Republic of Macedonia for Cooperation with and Development of the Civil Society (2018-2020)

Adopted changes:

 

(1) Law on Free Access to Public Information

(2) Rules of procedure of the Council and the Decision for establishing of the Council for Cooperation with and Development of the Civil Society

(3) Law on Social Protection

(4) Law on Free Legal Aid

(5) Law on Value Added Tax

 

Proposals:

(1) Draft-law on Lobbying

(2) Draft-law on Public Assemblies

 

State funding (for CSOs)840 million MKD (approx. 13.6 million EUR)[1]. 

 

726 million MKD (approx. 11.8 million EUR)[2]

 

Human resources
(employees and volunteers)
1.645 (CRNM)1.642 (CRNM)
CSO-Government Cooperation (relevant and new body: consultation mechanism)Council for Cooperation with and Development of the Civil Society 

 

Council for Cooperation with and Development of the Civil Society

 

Key findings

1.Violation of fundamental freedoms is one of the strongest findings of this report.
Numerous recorded cases of violations of freedom of association, expression and assembly are recorded within Area 1.
2.Establishing GONGOs and PONGOs is one of the main trends in Serbia during 2019 in the public space and the media.
Their role is visible in decision-making processes, distribution of state money, and the initiation and campaigning of
critically oriented actors.
3Different domestic and international reports assess non-favorable framework for individual and corporate giving. There are no proper tax benefits underlying the further growth of giving. Implementation of existing incentives is not unique and different practices of the competent authorities in this regard are present. The definition of public interest is inconsistent in Law on Associations law and tax laws. There is no system for collecting data on donations from citizens and businesses.
4.Although there is a framework for transparent state funding, it still contains certain gaps, which allow for the prescribed procedures, and in particular the political influence on the final decisions. The state funding for CSOs in Serbia is
one of the initial reasons for increasing GONGO activities and a number of such cases have been reported.
5.The legal framework still does not stimulate volunteering, no acknowledges the value of volunteer engagement and does not enables the collection and analysis of data on volunteers and volunteer hours.
6.Although certain changes in the legal framework have been observed, they are not qualitative and do not address the problem of limited influence in the decision-making process. Due to the focus of the EU on quantitative criteria, a
trend of faking public participation and debates was observed, with strong GONGOs activities.

Key recommendations

1Consistent implementation laws and by-laws in the area of freedom of association, freedom of assembly and freedom of expression at all state levels in order to defend achieved standards in the legal framework, as well as
strengthening the accountability of all relevant institutions responsible for the protection of fundamental rights.
2Stop using GONGOs and PONGOs for the purpose of legitimizing decisions and proposals of institutions of government, faking public debates as well as misuse of state funds for all associations established and operating in areas of public interest.
3Providing stronger political label for the philanthropy with stronger incentives for corporative giving, introducing incentives for individual giving, and harmonization of public interest between different laws as well as establishing system for collecting data.
4Developing additional qualitative criteria for participating in distribution of state funds on a basis of expertise and public interest contribution as well as establishing a system for effective regular collecting data on all types of state finding.
5Adopt a new Volunteering Act to treat volunteering as an activity of public interest, not as unpaid work as well as by-laws that will make it possible monitoring the effects of its application.
6Developing additional qualitative criteria for participating in decision making processes on a basis of expertise and public interest contribution as well establishing a system for effective regular collecting data.

The legal framework provides guarantees for exercising the right to freedom of association in line with international standards on freedom of association. The right to establish and participate in formal and informal ways of association remains guaranteed in the Constitution of the Republic of North Macedonia and is further elaborated in the Law on Associations and Foundations (LAF). The freedom of association is enjoyed via joining in associations, foundations, alliances, and ways of organizing foreign organizations. The citizens can freely associate for various goals, and the limitations to the right to association are listed. The legal framework allows individual and legal persons to exercise the right to freedom of association off-line and online, without discrimination, including foreigners. Minors can establish an association once they turn 15, and can become members once they turn 14, with astatement of consentsigned by their legal guardian. This applies also topersons with a limited working ability or  persons without working ability. According to LAF, two or more organizations can associate in a union or other form of association, which can become a legal person with registration. These organizations can become part of international organizations or can cooperate with them in other ways.

Registration is not mandatory and registration rules are prescribed and allow for easy and timely registration. The Central Registry of the Republic of North Macedonia (CRNM) is the only institution where registration is available within 5 days of the day of submitting a request on a paper form (online submission is still unavailable for CSOs) . CSOs are in a less favorable position compared to business entities, as they cannot register online (this is available for businesses and it’s free), and the cost of registration when submitting paper forms is higher than that of the other business entities (except when registering a shareholding company).

Every individual or legal entity in practice can form associations, foundations, or other non-profit, non-governmental forms offline or online. Registration is mostly accessible within the legally prescribed deadlines. The survey showed that  for two CSOs, the registration tookmore than five days (out of the total number of 10 CSOs whichwere asked to describe their registration experience during 2018/2019). Individuals and CSOs can in practice, form and participate in networks and coalitions, in  and out oftheir home countries.

According to the survey, the majority of CSOs practice networking on a national level (80,37% are part of a domestic network). A total of four CSOs responded that they went through a complex procedure of formal registration of the network: long-lasting process; burdensome documentation requested (detailed reports and private information of members; submitting a formal application voted by the Assembly of members). Unregistered organizations are not sanctioned, they exist and manage to advocate for certain issues with state institutions and other CSOs.

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 financial reporting of CSOs is regulated by the Law on Accounting for Non-Profit Organizations, which was not improved yet, even though the improvement was envisaged in the Strategy, and the analysis was prepared by a local CSO. The reporting requirements vary according to the size of the organization’s budget. Namely, according to Article 18 of the Law, the organizations with a total assets value or annual income of less than 153 thousand MKD (approx. 2.500 EUR) are not obliged to prepare final accounts and submit them to the PRO and CRNM. But they are required to keep a cash book and an income and expense book. Those with an annual income of more than 2,500 euros must submit final accounts to the PRO and CRNM by the end of February the following year.

The cooperation between the civil society sector and the Financial Intelligence Office (FIO) continued throughout 2019 on the matters of risk assessment of financing of terrorism. FIO published Guidance for Risk Assessment and Decision for Establishing an Indicators Listpertaining to  Suspicious Transactions in the first quarter of 2019, failing to differentiate the need for risk assessment between CSOs and casinos and betting houses. Some of the indicators concerning CSOs are quite general and problematic (e.g. the bank is responsible for determining (assessing) r the purpose of a donation and whether it is aligned with the work of the organization and the project, etc.).

The legislation envisages that the CSOs may be subject to external control by authorized bodies that have inspection powers. Concerning the sanctions stipulated in LAF and other laws, CSOs are equal to other legal entities. In addition, LAF stipulates higher individual fines for responsible individuals (in comparison to the fine for the organization) in two cases (not reporting changes to CRNM and in case when a CSOs with public benefit status does not submit a financial and narrative report.

CSO can choose to dissolve at any time by a resolution of the highest governing body. The law prescribes precisely the situations where organizations have to dissolve and the grounds for involuntary termination (e.g., in cases of violations of statute or law).

Few cases of state interference in the internal matters of the CSOs in the work of CSOs were recorded with the survey.

Four CSOs reported threats by government representatives: asking for a bribe; sending inappropriate “messages”; threats by a minister or representative of the parliament. Then, five CSOs reported unannounced inspections by state institutions:  State Education Inspectorate; Ministry of Culture; unnamed institution asking for detailed documentation on project implementation besides having reports already approved, Food and Veterinary Agency, Financial Police, labour, and sanitation. Furthermore, five CSOs reported harassment and limitations of the activities of the moderators of online groups or their members: attacks on social media by political party activists, threats and insults; struggles with managing fakeinformation in online groups, pressure on members by people in power; monitoring of groups. Finally, one case of excessive financial oversight by a state institution was recorded, with excessive requests of documents.

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.

Chart 2. Please select the answers relevant to your experience when receiving funds from foreign donors (%):

According to the survey, the majority of CSOs (68,1 %) had foreign donors as a source of funding. The survey showed that out of those, 47.2% (77) CSOs faced complex procedures for VAT exemption for foreign funds (long period of waiting for project registration which influences the beginning of the project implementation; the process is not online and only available in the capital city; donors canceling support due to the long procedures; administrative barriers; lack of capacities of the employees; lack of understanding on the side of businesses of the procedure; lack of clarity of rules and difference in responses by the state officials; problematic procedure for the partners of the consortium of the project; lack of ability to ask questions concerning the procedure over the phone.

CSOs freely receive funding from individuals, corporations and other sources. According to the survey, the majority (88,96%) of CSOs have not obtained funds from domestic private donors.

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 issues that the citizens were protesting were numerous and diverse. Most of the protests held in Skopje were against the name change (141).  followed by protests on the workers’ rights (121 protests in 8 cities), protection of the environment and climate change (63 protests in 7 cities), the need for improvement of local infrastructure (26 in 4 cities), agriculture (17 in 4 cities), and other issues. Aside from the protests related to the name change, we can conclude that environment was the most prominent issue that people were protesting about (various aspects of the environment such as air pollution, mines, landfill, cutting trees, garbage, climate change, etc.). In addition, numerous workers have taken the streets to raise their concerns over their conditions and status. Certain requests were fulfilled by the Government, for instance,  the Ilovica mine in Strumica. The Government annulled the contract with the concessioner after and the  activism was mobilized and pressured for revocation of the permit.

According to the survey, 60,7% (99) respondents have taken part in a public gathering either individually or through the organization (both as participants and organizers).

Chart 3. Have you or any other individual from your organization faced any of the following situations during practicing the right to free assembly: (%)

Few limitations to the gatherings were registered. A total of 12 cases report administrative burdens and other restrictions (five cases of administrative burdens; three limitations to physical access; three limitations to the desired time for protest; and in one case, the excessive use of force by the police).

The total number of detained persons in the public rallies were: Skopje (8) and in Ohrid (1-political rally). Complaints against police officers from dissatisfied citizens of police behavior during the public gatherings were submitted in Bitola. In addition, the MIA Unit for Internal Control, Criminal Investigations and Professional Standards acted upon two complaints against the use  of police force during a public gathering (during a handball match, and during protest performance against police brutality). They were all considered as unfounded. 

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 following cases were recorded: verbal and physical attacks over journalists, pressures over journalist investigating organized crime in construction activities, physical attack by the security over female journalist during religious manifestation, two female journalists were target to hate speech and threats by a state employee, forceful eviction of representatives of the media from the building of the Constitutional court, where they were previously invited, to attend the meeting of the president of the court and the EU ambassador Žbogar. Furthermore, according to the AJM, a culture of impunity for attacks on journalists persists, as out of the sixty attacks in the past six years, 13 have not been investigated and many remain unsolved.

The last HRD report on the country shows that the human rights defenders who work in the field of journalism feel neither free nor restricted in exercising their freedom of opinion and expression. They confirm that the climate is more favorable, but still are exposed to constant threats and pressures, and usually discredited if affiliated or with ng with CSOs.

According to the survey, over 90% of CSOs have not faced any limitations to the freedom of expression. However, cases of limitations or pressures were recorded.

Chart 4. Have you or other individuals from your organization experienced some of the listed unlawful restrictions while practicing the right to freedom of expression (%):

Namely, eight CSOs practice self-censorship, seven CSOs faced pressure for critical speech against the government or private entities and seven CSOs faced pressure over their advocacy activities. Throughout the year, the CSOs were able to freely react to discriminatory, harmful and hateful expressions in public

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.

Chart 5. Have you or other individuals from your organization experienced some of the listed unlawful restrictions while practicing the right to freedom of expression (%):

According to the survey, over 90% CSOs have not faced any limitations, however, 14 CSOs reported limited access to information, and six CSOs had their tools for communication blocked/hacked.

There are significant challenges to the sustainability and quality of journalism. Another challenge for the Government, despite trying to improve their approach to the media was the rise of fake news and disinformation in the social media.. In December 2019, in order to proactively tackle the trend of disinformation and fake news, two CSOs, , the AMJ and The Council of Ethics in Media published a  Register of professional online media, consisting of 70 members that adhere to the obligatory criteria imposed by the Council.

Such positive developments show improvement in the the media coverage of civil society. They are also used by CSOs to advocate for certain issues, to raise awareness, and generally , to present their work and contribute to the debate. Certain CSOs and think-tanks have been continuously recognized by traditional media outlets, such as the TV (invited to TV debates and informative programs).

In North Macedonia, internet access is cheap and available to all. According to the latest data from the State Statistical Office, in the first trimester of 2019, 81.8% of the households had access to the Internet from home. The participation of households ccording to the type of settlement, in the total population of households that have broadband internet is 85.7%. Of the total population between the age 15 -74, the Internet was used by 81.4%, and 72.9% used it every day or almost every day.

LegislationPractice 0 – 20 Fully disabling environment 20 – 40 Disabling environment 40 – 60 Partially enabling environment60 – 80 Enabling environment 80 – 100 Fully enabling environment

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.

Chart 6. What type of tax benefits are used in the work of your organization? (%)

According to the survey, nearly half (48.47%) CSOs use VAT exemptions, 5.52% use personal income tax exemptions, and 3.07% exemptions on the income from economic activity. Over a third (34.36%) don’t use exemptions, and 14.11% responded they did not know that exemptions are available for their organization. The long and burdensome project registration procedure in the Secretariat for European Affairs inflicts additional costs and difficulties for CSOs.

The legislation provides benefits to all CSOs for their economic activities. Pursuant to the Law on Profit Tax they do not pay profit tax. The Law also specifies which income is not taxed. The income becomes taxable once the the total threshold of one million MKD (approx. 16.000 EUR) is exceeded  with 1% tax calculated against the exceeding amount only. In addition to the economic activities, non-taxable revenues are those generated by membership fees, charitable contributions, donations, grants, gifts (in money, goods, property rights), wills, legates, revenues from dividends from trade companies established with the funds of the association, and revenues from the Budget. According to the survey, five CSOs use tax benefits for economic activity. Out of the 84 CSOs which selected using tax benefits, 26 said they did not know benefits exist, while the rest consider the administrative obligations оn using tax benefits for economic activities to be on the average 6th degree of difficulty (on a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is the least difficult).

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.

Chart 7. Please select the level of agreement with the following statements regarding the procedure for using tax incentives for private donors (%):

According to the survey, more CSOs agree (19.6%) than those that disagree (8%) about the procedure for obtaining tax benefits for individual donors being difficult, while 23.9% responded that they did not know. When it comes to the procedure for obtaining tax benefits for corporate donors, 17.8% CSOs agree that the procedure is difficult, 8% disagree and 25.8% did not  know.

According to Catalyst Balkans, the donations for charitable purposes noted a decrease of 13.4%. Most of the donations are coming from citizens (46.1%), companies (40.4%) and individuals (7.4%). Donations are given for health protection (23.2%), marginalized persons, poverty and education. CSOs as users ofdonations are ranking second  (29.3%), with citizens beingthe most active donors to CSOs (70%). The corporate sector is in second place with a significant decline.

CSOs can obtain a public benefit status (PBO) according to the LAF, but no benefits are envisaged. There are four CSOs with PB status (only one new PB status was awarded in 2019). The PB Status Committee held the fifth session in 2019, concluding that the Unit for Cooperation with NGOs should prepare an analysis of the legislation that regulates the PB status and comparative analysis.

Finally, the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) is understood as potentially encouraging corporate giving, thus is still of interest to the Government. The Ministry of Economy adopted a Mid-term strategy for CSR (2019-2023) aiming to define and implement a comprehensive approach towards the promotion and advancement of the CSR with a focus on businesses. CSOs are listed as implementers of some of the measures/activities in the action plan of the Strategy.

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.

Chart 8. Please select the type of state support your organization has received from the national or local government agencies:

The survey  provides evidence of a shortage of  available public funding. Fifty-six 56 (34%) CSOs have received project support, three CSOs received an institutional grant, and fifteen CSOs received EU co-financing. Furthermore, a third of the CSOs (29.8%) agree, and 56% CSOs disagree on whether  the state funding is sufficient and commensurate  to the needs of CSOs.

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.

Chart 9. From the experience of your organization, please select the level of agreement with the following statements regarding state funding for CSOs (%)

According to the survey, 41.7% CSOs agree that  state institutions follow  legally prescribed procedures for funding allocation, while 29.8% disagree.

The application requirements imposed by state bodies are burdensome for just over half of the respondents to the survey. Yet the majority considers the criteria for applying clear.

Chart 10. From the experience of your organization, please select the level of agreement with the following statements regarding state funding for CSOs (%)

Namely, 56% CSOs consider that the application requirements are burdensome (e.g. high costs, plethora of  documents; difficult to access documents); while 35.7% disagree. Also, 70.3% of the CSOs consider the criteria for applying to be clear, 23. %8 disagree. The majority of CSOs consider the decisions on tenders to be unfairr. According to the survey, out of 84 CSOs (51.5%) that wanted to provide their opinion (out of total 163 CSOs), 20.2% agree that the decisions on public funding allocation is fair, while 63.1% disagree.

There are legal acts that provide certain measures for accountability, monitoring and evaluationAccording 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.

LegislationPractice 0 – 20 Fully disabling environment 20 – 40 Disabling environment 40 – 60 Partially enabling environment60 – 80 Enabling environment 80 – 100 Fully enabling environment

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 10th 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 16th 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.

Chart 11. Are you informed about the work of the Council for Cooperation with and Development of the Civil Society? (%)
Chart 12. Were you consulted by CSO representatives in the Council for Cooperation with and Development of the Civil Society on certain issues related to your work? (%)

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.

However, when asked about how the Council can improve the information flow, numerous suggestions were provided. When it comes to the Council consulting with other CSO, the survey showed that  оut of the CSOs which  are informed about  the existence of the Council (61.3%), 43% responded that the CSOs representatives in the Council consult with them about current issues , while 44% are not consulted, and 13% do not know.

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.

Chart 13. Please select a response regarding the statements relating to the participation of CSOs in consultation on drafting laws and policy making (%):

Similarly, concerning the access to relevant information, just above one third (32.52%) of CSOs agree that they have access to relevant information before consultations, 30.67% CSOs do not agree, and 36.81% do not know. In terms of substantial consultation, 36.8% CSOs suggestions were considered (25.2% most of them were considered, 8.6% few were considered and 3,1% said all of our suggestions were considered). Then, 3.1% CSOs said their suggestions were not accepted.

In general, the cooperation between the Government and the civil society has been improving. According to the survey, last year 61.3% CSOs  cooperated with state institutions (e.g. participation in policy creation, implementation of activities, etc.). Then, 22.1% CSOs cooperated more than  five times, 2.,8% CSOs cooperated aboutfive times, and 10.4% CSOs cooperated only once. Then, 28.2% CSOs did not need to cooperate with state institutions, and 10.4% (17) tried but failed.

Throughout the year the CSOs were involved in the preparation of certain laws important for the operation of CSOs, including:  Law on Fight Against Corruption Law on Public Information, Law on Youth, Law on Free Legal Aid, Law on Public Procurement. The civil society was successful in its efforts to regulate the Anti-Discrimnation Law and the Law on Termination of Pregnancy, after several years of advocacy.

According to the responses in the survey, which also mentions these legal acts, 48.5% of the CSOs were involved in the policy creation and law-making processes (e.g. laws, bylaws, national and local strategies, action plans, etc.). More precisely, the CSOs took part (provided opinion online, participated in  working groups, had consultative meetings, expert support, etc.) in the preparation of around 38 laws. Also, the CSOs were involved and consulted in the preparation of 22 other policy and strategic documents. 

However, the CSOs were not consulted on certain politically sensitive issues  in 2019 , such as the Draft-law on public prosecution and the Draft-law on public gatherings, Law for Use of languages.

The strengthening of the public servants’ capacities to involve  CSOs, is corroborated by law (Law on Administrative Officers Law on Public Sector Employees), defining  the competencies of MISA when preparing and adopting the annual Program for generic training of administrative officers. According to the Strategy, a specific training program is set to be developed for public servants to effectively organize public consultations.

According to the survey and in terms of the CSOs’ perception of the public servants’ capacity to involve CSOs in the consultation processes, 15.95% CSOs agree,  41.10% CSOs disagree  that the designated public servants facilitated effective engagement of CSOs in the consultation processes and 42.94% do not know. Furthermore, 17.18% agree, while 39.88% do not  agree that the majority of civil servants responsible for drafting documents have the necessary capacities to involve CSOs; 42.94% said they do not know. The overall mandate for monitoring  the CSO’s involvement in the policy making process is given to the MISA, to prepare an annual report on the conducted consultations based on the inputs provided by the different institutions with the mandate to propose laws.

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.

Chart 14. What was the experience of your organization with the request for access to public information? (%)

According to the survey, just over a third 33.7% CSOs sent a request for access to public information in the past 12 months. Out of them, a total of 47.3% (26) CSOs received a response, 40% (22) CSOs said sometimes yes, sometimes no[1], 9.1% (five) CSOs did not get a response. Similarly, 40% (22) CSOs received the information within the legally prescribed deadline, 43.6% (24) CSOs sometimes yes, sometimes no, and 10.9% (six) CSOs did not receive within the deadline. When it comes to the clarity of the response, 36.4% (20) CSOs received a response in a clear format, (40%) 22 sometimes yes, sometimes no, and 18.2% (10) CSOs said it was not in clear form. Regarding explanation for refusal, 40% (22) CSOs did not receive a clear explanation on the reasons for refusal of the request, 25.5% (14) CSOs did receive a clear explanation, 21.8% (12) CSOs sometimes yes and sometimes no. In terms of rejecting requests without explanation, 61.8% (34) said that that was not the case, 21.8% (12) CSOs said sometimes yes sometimes no, and 7.3% (four) CSOs were rejected without explanation. For 61.8% (34) CSOs after the request was rejected they were not advisedto submit complaints, 9.1% (five) CSOs sometimes yes sometimes no, 16.4% (nine) CSOs have suggested this possibility. 

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.

Chart 15. Based on the experience of your organization, please evaluate the following statements regarding the participation in the work of the advisory, consultative body, working group or committee (%):

The majority (83%) of CSO representatives agree that they were able to freely express their critical views within the work of the cross-sectoral body, etc. In addition, the majority (69%) of CSO representatives agree they were able to access state bodies even when using alternative ways of advocacy for public promotion of their standpoint that might influence the work of the body.

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.

Chart 16. Please select if you agree with the following statements regarding the participation of CSOs in providing services (%):

Almost half (46%) CSOs do not know if CSOs in their area of work are excluded from the calls for proposals for provision of public services. 35% do not agree and 18.4% CSOs agree. The legal framework does not allow for long-term service contracts.. Even though the same CSOs (e.g. in social service provision, health-related service provision) are supported each year, they have to go through the process of application and signing new contracts again

0 - 20 Fully disabling environment20 - 40 Disabling environment 40 - 60 Partially enabling environment60 - 80 Enabling environment 80 - 100 Fully enabling environment

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.

Chart 16. Please select if you agree with the following statements regarding the participation of CSOs in providing services (%):

Almost half (46%) CSOs do not know if CSOs in their area of work are excluded from the calls for proposals for provision of public services. 35% do not agree and 18.4% CSOs agree. The legal framework does not allow for long-term service contracts.. Even though the same CSOs (e.g. in social service provision, health-related service provision) are supported each year, they have to go through the process of application and signing new contracts again

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.

LegislationPractice 0 – 20 Fully disabling environment 20 – 40 Disabling environment 40 – 60 Partially enabling environment60 – 80 Enabling environment 80 – 100 Fully enabling environment

Recommendation 1

The state institutions should ensure that the proposals of the new legislation are in line with international standards for freedom of association, assembly and expression. (this refers mainly to the problematic provisions within the Draft-Law on Lobbying and Draft-Law on Public Gatherings).

The basic freedoms of association, assembly and expression were legally guaranteed, and generally protected and enjoyed in practice by everyone. However, the potential threat to the principle of freedom of association by some of the provisions in the Draft-Law on Lobbying is still present, due to the unclear provisions on the definition of what lobbyist represents, and which activities are considered as lobbying. By this, the key principle of the LAF – participation in public life is at risk, according to which CSOs can freely express and promote their views and opinions on issues of their interest; start initiatives and participate in public opinion formation and policymaking. The failure to protect this principle, might e.g. prevent CSOs to engage with the Parliament and its work. When it comes to the Draft-Law on Public Gatherings, by the end of 2019, an extensively amended and restrictive version of the law was prepared (minimum of 50 people to hold an assembly, expanding the list of places where gatherings are restricted, prohibition for participants to cover their faces and head, and regulation of the time for holding an assembly from 6 to 23 h), without consultations. After reactions from the public and CSOs on social media, the Government withdrew the law.

Thus, there is a need for all of the state institutions to ensure that the proposals of the new legislation are in line with international standards for freedoms of association, assembly and expression. Namely, the Ministry of Justice established a working group on the Draft-Law on Lobbying, yet the possibility for a contribution towards the draft-text was mostly around technicalities, rather than substantial discussion concerning the problem being solved and its impact on the civil society. Thus, the Ministry should include a wider debate on the Draft-Law of Lobbying, and further investigate the problem that is trying to solve, and ensure that the principles of the freedom of association are protected and enjoyed. Furthermore, considering the regressive provisions proposed within the Draft-Law on Public Gatherings from the Ministry of Interior Affairs, and the lack of collaboration with civil society, this can be seen as an ongoing threat to freedom of assembly. Namely, the existing legislation on public gatherings is solid, and other than a few changes to further ensure the enjoyment of the right in line with international standards, it should remain as such.

Recommendation 2

The relevant state institutions should without delay comprehensively reform the state funding for CSO.

Few positive developments concerning the state funding for CSOs took place. Namely, for the first time, high-level efforts were dedicated to reforming the existing model of state funding. These efforts were clearly expressed by the then-Prime minister Zaev at a national conference organized by MCIC. This was also encouraged by the memorandum of understanding between the Government and FOSM to work on the public funding reform for CSOs, which later resulted in analysis and draft recommendations for the state funding model. During the year, certain state institutions that allocate funding have undertaken steps to improve different aspects of the procedure and to increase their transparency and accountability (increased number of open calls, availability of information concerning awarded projects to CSOs). Specifically, the General Secretariat of the Government for CSOs for 2019 introduced expert commission and oversight of two members of the CSO Council, for the funds they distributed to CSOs, as well as conducted a consultative process on funding priorities for 2020 with wider CSOs with the support of MCIC.

However, despite the expressed willingness of the Government, the reform of the system for state funding for CSOs has progressed slowly. Namely, there was a delay in the preparations of the recommendations for a model and the consultations with civil society started in December instead of September. Thus, many of the ineffective parts of the existing system still maintained. The available data show a decrease in the total state funding amount planned for CSOs for 13% for 2019 compared to 2018. State funding is still almost a non-recognizable source of income for CSOs and is accessible only to a limited number of organizations. The income from games of chance and entertainment games has  not increased yet and is shared among very few organizations. Then, funding from the General Secretariat of the Government for CSOs continues to cover numerous areas with insignificant amounts of funds. There was also no progress in terms of providing CSOs with institutional support. Still, there are no opportunities for multi-annual financing, nor is there co-financing for EU and other projects. These are the main aspects of the state funding reform that the Government should focus on in future.

There is a need, without delay, that the key Government fund allocating institutions finalize and adopt a comprehensive reform in a participatory manner, based on the analysis and recommendations that are already available. The reform should include increased amount of state funding for CSO (including the increased individual amount of grants). This can be done by ensuring available data that at least 1/3 of the total annual income of CSOs should come from state funding (within three years should reach 30 million EUR for wider CSOs). The Law on Associations and Foundations offers the grounds for the development of such provisions. In addition, this must come in a separate budget line for associations and foundations and not those for other non-profit entities. It is important that long-term funding and institutional support become available, as well as co-funding of activities supported by other donors. The funding should have an adequate geographical distribution. All of this should be regulated through a standardized procedure to increase transparency, effectiveness and accountability of the distribution of funds.

Recommendation 3

The Government should implement the standards of involvement of CSOs in lawmaking and policy creation process for all legislation and consistently across all state institutions. Participation should start at an early stage, with adequate access to information and time for a quality and substantial response, and provision of feedback.

The significant involvement of CSOs in public policy creation and law-making processes continued throughout 2019, via different forms of inclusion (electronic consultations, working groups, consultations, etc.). During the year, the CSOs were involved in the preparation of certain laws important for the operation of CSOs such as the: Law on the Fight Against Corruption, Law on Information from Public Character, Law on Youth, Law on Free Legal Aid and Law on Public Procurement. Civil society was successful in its advocacy efforts to bring along the adoption of the Anti-Discrimination Law and the Law on Termination of Pregnancy. The publishing of the deadlines for electronic consultations increased, and so did the abidance by them. Namely, 49,6% of the total number of draft laws were consulted via ENER, and for 96,4% of those, the minimal deadline of 20 days for consultations was respected. Within the consultative process, CSOs were still faced with significant shortcomings. There were cases of bypassing CSOs when it comes to issues such as rule of law and anti-corruption (Law on PublicPprosecution, etc.). Still, the lack of adequate access to information and substantial consultation persists.

Thus, there is a need for a future upgrade of this positive trend of improved openness and appreciation for the involvement of CSOs, by making sure the standards apply for all legislation (e.g. even those that are considered politically sensitive Law on public procurement). Also, there is a need for a standardized application by all institutions, and not just for the few of them which stand out with their cooperation.  Even though certain ministries are closer to their constituencies due to their nature of work (e.g. MLSP, AYS, etc.)  there is still a need of ensuring that  rules apply for all. The good practice of using ENER as a platform for electronic consultations and respecting the deadlines should be further supported and improved. Finally, the results from the survey clearly point out to the need to match this increase of cooperation with increased effectiveness of consultations in terms of the necessary preconditions that CSOs should provide quality input to the process, such as adequate information, quality and  trust in knowing that their contributions to the process were taken into consideration.

Recommendation 4

The Council should dedicate most of its sessions to influence institutions to implement the priority areas for sectoral development as per the Strategy, and to start, without delay,  direct communication and consultations with other CSOs. In addition, as a consultative body, the Council should reconsider the legality and effectiveness of adding a task to nominate civil society representatives in different bodies and events upon request from state institutions.

The Council for Cooperation with and Development of the Civil Society has continued to effectively function throughout the year, focusing on issues of importance to the civil sector. By holding a total of ten sessions, it exceeded the legally set minimum number of four sessions per year, for which the agenda and materials are publicly available upfront. Almost at each session, the Council has placed certain recommendations and/or requests for different institutions. All of those placed to the Unit for Cooperation with NGOs were  accepted, together with others made to several other institutions and implemented  promptly. Yet, one of the most important tasks concerning the broader reform of the state funding for CSOs, which was increase of the amount distributed from the Government Secretariat from approx. 194,000 to 971,700 EUR was not considered.

Certain challenges to the effectiveness of the Council were noted. Firstly, the Rules of Procedure of the Council were changed twice, including a disputable and legally ungrounded decision for the Council to add to its list of task the mandate  for execution of requests from government bodies (such as a request for nominations of representatives of CSOs in bodies and events). Secondly, the Council fails to effectively consult with  CSOs at large, as less than a third (26.4%) of the CSOs that responded to the survey were consulted for certain issues. Thirdly, the regular participation at the sessions of both the CSOs members and state institutions was a challenge, and when it comes to participation of other CSOs, outside of the Council, only two representatives of CSOs took part (one from the organizations members of the Council), and one independent expert. When it comes to regular CSOs members’ participation at the sessions of the Council,  some representatives were not present at the sessions.

Thus, the Council should continue the good practice of sharing materials and information and organizing regular sessions. The Council should dedicate most of its sessions to influence institutions to implement the priority areas for the development of the sectors from the Strategy, as these are issues where the sector wants to see progress and engagement. Also, there is a need for direct communication and consultations with other CSOs. Some of the ideas provided by CSOs from the survey, on how the Council should engage with CSOs,  is done throughdirect emails and phone communication, particularly with those outside Skopje, through workshops, info-bulletins, open sessions,  social media, other communication tools , periodical meetings with CSOs on different topics, invitations extended to relevant CSOs at particular sessions for certain issues. Also, as a consultative body, the Council should reconsider the legality and effectiveness of adding a task to select and nominate civil society representatives in different bodies and events upon request from state institutions. Namely, since this task is not stipulated  in the Decision for establishment of the Council, there is no legal base to add one. There is a need for building trust and cooperation with wider civil society organizations. Yet, it seems that this step takes away a large chunk of the power of participation from the CSOs and puts in the Council’s hands on how to decide on the process and to organize it.

2019 was a historic year for the development of the country. The turbulence of the socio-political events significantly shaped the environment and the operations of civil society. 2019 was a  year of elections, with two main events – the Presidential elections and  and Stevo Pendarovski winning the second round as the candidate  of the ruling coalition, and  setting the date  for the next Parliamentarian elections in 2020.

At the beginning of the year, the Parliament cast the  final vote for  changing the name of the  country to North Macedonia, by enforcing  the Prespa after it had been  ratified by both North Macedonia and Greece. After the name change, the following milestones were NATO accession and the EU negotiations. While the signing of the NATO accession protocol by different member countries throughout the year progressed as planned, the EU accession was halted. Namely, the European Council postponed the accession talks as France led a few member states to reject Albania and North Macedonia from moving forward, asking for a new methodology for further reforms of the accession process.

Despite reaching important milestones showing Government’s strong commitment for internal reform, the so-called ‘Extortion’ scandal undermined the trust of citizens in the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. Namely, the Special Public Prosecutor was arrested, and another politician from the ruling party was accused of alleged extortion scandal. Other collaborators were also identified, one being a medium  (TV station) and its informal owner and also a TV personality all indicted for extortion of money from abusinessman. This directly shook the judicial reform progress efforts. As a side effect, the CSOs, which were managed by one of the collaborators in the extortion scandal, gained publicity. The Prosecution initiated a separate investigation on suspected fraud within the organization, which had a negative impact on  the image of the civil society.

Finally, 2019 was  significant when it comes to involving CSOs in law and policy creation processes (Law on Fight Against Corruption, Law on Access to Public Information, Law on Free Legal Aid, Law on Public Procurement, etc.). Most importantly, two laws, the Anti-discrimination Law and the Law on Abortion, were adopted to further promote and protect human rights. On one hand, the Government gave the opportunity to the CSOs to publicly participate in various institutions, however, on the other, the expectations from civil society to contribute to those processes were not matched. Namely, the comprehensive reform of the state funding to support the long-term operations of CSOs has progressed slowly.

Recent news