• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA BASELINE REPORT, APRIL 2014

Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 1 Component 1: Conducive environment

Objective 1: An enabling legal and policy environment, for the exercise of the rights of freedom, expression, assembly and association Result 1.1.: All individuals and legal entities can express themselves freely, assemble peacefully and establish, join and participate in non-formal and/or registered organisations

Indicator: 1.1.a Quality assessment of existing legislation and policy framework There is lack of relevant and accurate information on the number of registered CSOs in the country (among other aspects), which leads to a lack of transparency and allows space for misuse and undermining of the civil society sector’s contribution and relevance. Freedom of association is guaranteed by the constitutional and legal framework and recognized international documents. The Laws on Associations and Foundations (on state, entity, and Brčko District levels) stipulate that any person or legal entity can form an association or foundation, for any purpose in accordance with the Constitution and legislative framework. An association may be established by a minimum of three physical or legal entities. A foundation may be established by one or more physical or legal entities. The Executive Board of the foundation must have at least three members. To establish a foundation in BiH and FBiH, an initial capital of 2000 BAM is required (approx. 1000 EUR). There is no adequate legislation on humanitarian organizations. Registration is voluntary and clearly governed by state, entity, cantonal and BD laws and regulations. There is no single registry for CSOs in BiH; CSOs are registered at an administrative level, according to the scope of their activities as provided by the relevant statutes. Fees for registration differ between administrative levels. Associations may establish networks or other forms of collaboration, and freely affiliate and cooperate with international organizations with a view of promoting the same rights and interests. In some cases the registration procedure for associations/umbrella associations was extremely prolonged, and citizens continued with their activities as informal associations. The option of online registration does not exist at any level. A significant number of CSOs still face different restrictions during the registration process (additional requirements, name changes, different interpretations of the law). The majority of CSOs find registration expensive. The legal framework provides guarantees against state interference in the internal matters of associations and foundations. No explicit legal provision exists to ensure protection from interference by third parties when exercising freedom of association. Registered CSO are obliged to comply with entity laws and regulations on accounting, as prescribed by International Accounting Standards, and are required to send yearly financial reports in standardized forms to the entity level Agencies for Finance and Informatics Services. These forms vary between entities, as to which aspects of the specific nature of CSOs are taken into consideration. Most CSOs are categorized as small legal entities, and thus are not subject to the statutory audit of financial statements. Control over the legality of association and foundation activities is administered by the competent administrative body, and involves monitoring the situation as it relates to association or foundation activities. The association or foundation can be terminated voluntary, or by force of law. Most CSOs reported that the government did not interfere in their internal affairs, although there were isolated cases of direct state interference in the internal matters of associations. There is no record of a CSO being terminated by force of law. There are some examples of intrusion by competent bodies, usually politically motivated and mainly expressed through repeated inspections (financial, labor, trade, sanitary). Sanctions that CSOs or individuals incur in this manner are most often based on legal provisions, which are rarely, if ever, enforced. CSOs in BiH have the option to acquire income through economic activities. In FBiH, unlike in RS, this income is not subject to taxation. For performance of non- similar economic activities CSOs operate as a component of the profit sector. The profit can be used exclusively for statutory determined objectives. CSOs can be financed by individuals, corporations and other sources, which may be based outside BiH. The funding of CSOs is conducted in accordance with state, entity and cantonal legislation. There are no restrictions on CSOs regarding funding. Freedom of peaceful assembly is guaranteed by the constitutions, ECHR, positive regulations and international documents. This freedom may only be restricted by the law. Peaceful organized assemblies are regulated by cantonal Laws on public assembly in the FBiH (2012), and by the RS Law on Public Assembly (2008). These laws recognize peaceful and organized assemblies, but contain a broad range of restrictions regarding the public spaces citizens can use to exercise their rights in this regard. While the laws generally state the principles governing freedom of assembly correctly, they tend to overregulate conditions for exercising the constitutionally guaranteed right of assembly. Peaceful assembly may be prohibited pursuant to the laws. According to information obtained from the media, in the last two years there have been several cases of interrogations and harassment of citizens and civil society activists by the police, related to their participation in peaceful assemblies. In most cases, there is a clear process for obtaining authorization for organizing an assembly. Restrictions are based on laws, and the organizer may file a complaint if he or she is denied permission for a peaceful assembly. Generally, no excessive use of force is exercised by law enforcement agencies. There are no official statistics or publicly accessible information in BiH police harassment, apprehension and interrogation of civil society activists. Based on information from the media, several such cases have been registered in the past two years, most often among protesters. Participants of the JMBG protests were subject to “special investigative actions”, and some activists and protest leaders were interrogated at the police station. Assemblies are reported on by the media. The right to freedom of expression, and the collection and dissemination of information is guaranteed by the BiH Constitution and relevant laws. Existing criminal laws do not encompass the positive obligations of Article 10 of the ECHR, which stipulate that the state must guarantee freedom of expression by creating a safe environment in which this can take place. In terms of public criticism, state and government authorities do not have a higher level of protection within the legal framework than citizens, CSOs, activists or journalists. While the legislative framework prohibits hate speech, it does not categorically or comprehensively define it, or the means of protection against it. Existing regulations do not comply with international laws and standards. Denial of Holocaust, genocide and war crimes is not punished. The authorities in FBiH and RS did not express a readiness to accept amendments to criminal laws for the definition of hate crimes, as proposed by the Coalition for Combatting Hate Speech. BiH was the first country in the region to decriminalize libel (the Law on Defamation), removing the possibility of criminal conviction for any person publicly expressing an opinion. In practice, there is greater legal and institutional protection of public officials than of citizens and CSO activists. CSO activists and journalists are exposed to many forms of open and/or concealed pressure and obstruction to their work, because of their critical observations on public authorities. In most cases, the courts follow the standards and judgments of the European Court as they relate to the protection of freedom of expression. There are examples of unequal treatment by courts when applying the Law on Defamation. CSOs representatives are victims of hate speech in a significant number of cases. They are subjected to verbal and other attacks, because of their willingness to speak critically in public. Freedom of expression and obtaining of information, as well as access to all channels of communication, are guaranteed by the national judicial system and the Law on Communications. Proposed amendments to the Law on Free Access to Information (LFAI) reduce the right to access of public information by reversing the right to access information: the Rule Prohibiting Access to Information defines only a short list of information freely available. It is evident that the usage of a significant number of laws is contrary to the provisions of the LFAI. Application of the Law on Free Access to Information does not have satisfactory public popularity, or promote the perception of information as a "public good". The Rulebook of the Court of BiH stipulates that only anonymous court verdicts should be published. According to the rules of the Communications Regulatory Agency and the Press Council in BiH, as well as to internal legal acts and media editorial principles, the media should uphold the principles of equal access to media space for CSO activists. There are no restrictions on legislative and technical grounds to access the internet and its various social networks. There are clear legal principles by which channels of communication (internet, phone service and the media) can be subject to special surveillance by the police and security/intelligence agencies in BiH. Media, social networks, the official web platforms of public authorities and a number of CSOs are not fully protected from political and other influences, especially at the local level. The Internet is widely accessible, available on favourable terms to the whole country, and is regulated in a unique way, meaning that data of public interest are not sufficiently available. In the last two years, cases of social network monitoring, interrogation of CSO activists, tapping of phone lines, and monitoring of the activities and correspondence of online social groups were recorded.

Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 2 Recommendations: BCSDN’s Possible others’ Legal:  Seek for further liberalisation of CSOs theritorial area of coverage  Key: Establish a unique register to provide information on CSOs in BiH regardless of their place of registration and enable knowledge of the exact number, structure and all other  Seek for explicit provision in the legislation that will ensure protection relevant details of CSOs from interference by the third parties  Abolition of the mandatory initial capital for establishing a foundation at  Closer monitoring of the mpact of money laundering legal provision on state and entity (FBiH) levels the operations of the CSOs  Pass the legislation which will regulate the status of humanitarian  Closer monitoring of the cases of intrusion of competent bodies in the organizations, at both state and entity levels work of CSOs  Formation of a unique CSO registry  Seek for more information in relation to provisions and benefits related  Unification of registration procedures and related expenses at all levels to individual and corporate giving within the BiH of government for all CSOs in BiH  Unification of legislation between the entities of RS and FBiH, as the issue of direct taxation (relating to income, profit and property) is specified by the Constitution of BiH as a competence of the entities  Carry out analysis and amendments of existing laws on public assembly, taking into account the recommendations of the Venice Commission, and democratic standards and principles regulating and actualizing the objectives of the right to peaceful assembly and protests  Abolition of municipal fees for the use of public spaces for the non- economic activities of CSOs in RS  Develop methodologies and constant monitoring by CSOs on expression of the right to freedom of speech in current legislation  Adopt amendments to criminal laws to ensure protection of the right to freedom of expression, and precise definition of the crimes "hate speech" and "hate crime"  Harmonize the Law on Defamation between entities, state and BD, to stipulate precisely the responsibility for libel concerning  Adopt amendments of to the entity laws on Freedom of Access to Information to harmonize them with the State Law  Harmonize relevant laws with the Law on free access to information. Practice (BCSDN):  Establish the option of online registration at all administrative levels in BiH  Conduct problem analysis of the registration process in all relevant ministries  Lower of registration costs  Develop mechanisms for collecting information related to cases of disturbance, apprehensions and police interrogations of civil society activists, as well as intellectuals and human rights defenders  Promote cooperation between CSOs and the police through good practice, and strengthen the mechanisms of civilian monitoring of the police.  Commence the campaign regarding changes to the Rulebook of the Court of BiH, and HJCP Decision on Abolition of the Anonymity of Court Condemnations Provisions  Improve of the protection of CSO activists and journalists as human rights defenders  Create special codes of conduct for information on vulnerable and minority groups  Instigate a study on the quality, diversity and availability of information of public importance for citizens, through official websites, internet platforms and social groups  Conduct affordability analysis of the internet and other channels of communication for the rural population, poorer sectors of the population, and vulnerable and minority groups  Develop a methodology for the monitoring and public reporting of cases of illegal treatment by security agencies towards CSOs, media and citizens.

Indicator 1.1.b. Progress with the adoption and implementation of relevant legislation Progress under this indicator will be monitor after the baseline and after setting the targets.

Result: 1.2. The policies and legal environment stimulate and facilitate volunteering and employment in CSOs

Indicator: 1.2.a. Number of employees in CSO (permanent and part-time) There is a lack of regular statistics maintenance (by entity employment institutes) regarding the number of non-profit sector employees. Entity Employment Services do not keep records on numbers of CSO employees. This information can be obtained from the entity Tax Administration Offices, but is not free of charge. For illustration purposes, according to information obtained from the RS Tax Administration Office, 380 persons were employed within 214 membership-based organizations.  30% of CSOs stated that they do not have employees, 7% have one employee, 31% from 2-5 employees, and 32% over 6 employees  Out of total number of employees, 2.7% work full time, and 3.9% work part-time Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 3 Indicator: 1.2.b. Number of volunteers in CSOs per type of CSO / sector No official data available  32% of CSOs believe that up to 10% of organisation engaged volunteers, 11% believe that 11-20% of CSOs engage volunteers, 36% believe that 21-50% CSOs engage volunteers, and 22% of CSOs believe that over 50% of CSOs engage volunteers  87% CSOs stated that they have engaged, 13% stated that have not engaged volunteers in 2013  16% of the organisation had 1-5 volunteers, 56% of CSOs over 15 volunteers, and 28% between 6-15 volunteers in 2013  36% of CSOs paid pecuniary compensations to the engaged volunteers in the amount of their costs, and 44% did not pay any pecuniary costs  47% of CSOs stated that they did not conclude any volunteering contract with volunteers, 11% stated that they have concluded with up to 3 volunteers, 12% if CSOs concluded volunteering contract with 4-10 volunteers, and 18% with more than 10 volunteers  54% of CSOs did not conclude any other contract with volunteers

Indicator: 1.2.c. Quality of legislative framework 70% of CSOs were inclined to stating that legal solution in BiH are not stimulating at all for volunteers, while 27% inclined stating that it is stimulating CSOs are treated the same way as other employers according to laws and bylaws. Labor laws of RS, FBiH and BD do not contain specific provisions in respect to CSOs. In addition, the laws on associations and foundations do not contain any specific provisions related to the employment of individuals in CSOs, specific procedures for employment, nor specific rights for CSO workers. There are no employment incentives related to CSOs specifically. The majority of CSOs consider that they do not have equal treatment to that of other employers generally, and only one-third of them consider they have equal treatment in receiving incentives. The RS Law on Volunteering was passed in 2008, and the FBiH Law on Volunteering in 2011. There are no legal provisions for volunteering in BD. There is as yet no legal framework defining the respective rights and responsibilities of volunteer and volunteer-involving organisations at the state level. Laws regulate: basic terms related to volunteering; principles of volunteering; contracts; rights and obligations of volunteers and organizers of volunteer work; and overseeing applications. However, laws on volunteering are still largely unknown to CSOs, who do not see their significance due to insufficient implementation on the ground. In order to prevent volunteer abuse, profitable companies can no longer offer volunteer programmes. The term “volunteer-intern” exists in different labor laws, and enables the creation of unpaid internships. Encouragement is mainly provided at a local level, although RS has entity mechanisms for giving incentives for volunteering. There are clearly defined volunteering contractual relationships in RS and FBiH, but not in BD. CSOs are almost unanimous in their assessment that the situation is poor regarding transparency in encouragement of volunteers. Recommendations: BCSDN’s Possible others’ Legal:  Look for the possibilities for more flexibilities in employment  Improve implementation of existing laws on volunteering by institutions and arrangements in CSOs CSOs  Pass the Law on Volunteering in BD.  Coordinate encouragement of volunteering with existing legislation, and promot good volunteering practice  Establish simple local and regional mechanisms for use by CSOs when defining contractual relationships with, and protection of, their volunteers. Practice:  Increase participation of CSOs in incentive programs, as well as the use of CSOs and their networks as resources for the promotion of various types of employment incentives  Request the introduction of CSOs as a special category in those institutes for statistics which regularly collect data on the number of CSO employees and their salaries  Increas activities related to the promotion of encouragement, and provision of more effective and clear criteria in selecting participants  Promote continuous education of all volunteering organizers

Result 1.3. National and/or local authorities have enabling policies and rules for grass-roots organisations and/or civic initiatives.

Indicator: 1.3.a. Quality of the enabling environment for grass-roots organisations and/or civic initiatives Registration is voluntary and clearly governed by state, entity, cantonal and BD laws and regulations. There is no single registry for CSOs in BiH; CSOs are registered at an administrative level, according to the scope of their activities as provided by the relevant statutes. Fees for registration differ between administrative levels. In some cases the registration procedure for associations/umbrella associations was extremely prolonged, and citizens continued with their activities as informal associations. The option of online registration does not exist at any level. Upon registration, the association or foundation acquires the status of legal entity. In most cases, CSOs find registration simple, and the process is completed within the prescribed 30 days. A significant number of CSOs still face different restrictions during the registration process (additional requirements, name changes, different interpretations of the law). The majority of CSOs find registration expensive. Additional costs for registering can vary significantly. Peaceful organized assemblies are regulated by cantonal laws on public assembly in the FBiH, and by the RS Law on Public Assembly. These laws recognize peaceful and organized assemblies, but contain a broad range of restrictions regarding the public spaces citizens can use to exercise their rights in this regard. Peaceful assembly may be prohibited pursuant to these laws. Freedom of expression and obtaining of information, as well as access to all channels of communication, are guaranteed by the national judicial system and the Law on Communications. Proposed amendments to the Law on Free Access to Information (LFAI) reduce the right to access of public information by reversing the right to access information, i.e. defining only a short list of information freely available. It is evident that the usage of a significant number of laws is contrary to the provisions of the LFAI. The Rulebook of the Court of BiH stipulates that only anonymous court verdicts should be published. According to the rules of the Communications Regulatory Agency and the Press Council in BiH, as well as to internal legal acts and media editorial principles, the media should uphold the principles of equal access to media space for CSO activists. There are no restrictions on legislative and technical grounds to access the internet and its various social networks. In the last two years, cases of social network monitoring, interrogation of CSO activists, tapping of phone lines, and monitoring of the activities and correspondence of online social groups were recorded. CSO activists and journalists expressed distrust towards public authorities and security agencies, because of their surveillance of social networks and incidences of phone tapping, reported by the media as well as the legality of such actions.

Recommendations: BCSDN’s Possible others’ Legal:  Seek for ensuring strateforward registration procedure of CSOs, whith  Forme of a unique CSO registry, clear instructionon about administrative formality and accomyning Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 4  Unification of registration procedures and related expenses at all levels of documentation and invormation required when registering CSO government for all CSOs in BiH  Look for streamlining procedures so the problems organisations face  Carry out analysis and amendments of existing laws on public assembly, during the registration are left to the minimum taking into account the recommendations of the Venice Commission, and  Closer monitoring if organisations can operate without formal democratic standards and principles regulating and actualizing the objectives registration of the right to peaceful assembly and protests  Abolition of municipal fees for the use of public spaces for the non-economic activities of CSOs in RS.  Adopt amendments of to the entity laws on Freedom of Access to Information to harmonize them with the State Law in terms of: time limits, of forms of communication with requesters of information and of sanctions for the public body and the responsible person in the event of non-compliance  Harmonize relevant laws with the Law on free access to information  Commence the campaign regarding changes to the Rulebook of the Court of BiH, and HJCP Decision on Abolition of the Anonymity of Court Condemnations Provisions  Create CSO and media platforms for joint advocacy actions and facilitated flow of information Practice (BCSDN):  Establish the option of online registration at all administrative levels in BiH.  Conduct a problem analysis of the registration process in all relevant ministries, with emphasis on its problems  Lower registration costs.  Develop a methodology for the monitoring and public reporting of cases of illegal treatment by security agencies towards CSOs, media and citizens  Organize independent investigations into cases of communications monitoring via internet, phones and the media, and possible violations of the right to freedom of expression and movement for CSOs and the media  Develop a special program to protect CSO activists and journalists from groundless interference by police and law enforcement agencies during the course of their work

Objective: 2. An enabling financial environment which supports sustainability of CSOs. Result: 2.1. Easy-to-meet financial rules for CSO, which are proportionate to their turn-over and non-commercial activities

Indicator: 2.1.a. CSOs' perception of the ease and effectiveness of financial rules and reporting requirements (disaggregated by type / size of CSO)  14% of CSOs assessed that prescribed financial rule, obligations of bookkeeping and accounting, referring to their organisations are not clear and understandable, while for 83% were clear and understandable  For 27% of CSOs it is not simple to implement prescribed financial rule, obligations of bookkeeping and accounting, referring to their organisations are not clear and understandable, while for 71% is simple to implement

Indicator: 2.1.b. Quality assessment of financial rules (with the focus on built-in mechanisms that financial rules and obligations change as the turn-over and non-commercial activities change). Registered CSO are obliged to comply with entity laws and regulations on accounting, as prescribed by International Accounting Standards, and are required to send yearly financial reports in standardized forms to the entity level Agencies for Finance and Informatics Services. These forms vary between entities, as to which aspects of the specific nature of CSOs are taken into consideration. Most CSOs are categorized as small legal entities, and thus are not subject to the statutory audit of financial statements. More than half of CSOs consider financial reporting requirements not in line with the specific nature of CSOs. Few cases were reported when tax administration required non-financial documents and evidence. CSOs in BiH have the option to acquire income through economic activities whose purpose is the pursuit of its stated goals. In FBiH, unlike in RS, this income is not subject to taxation. An association and a foundation may undertake economic activities which are not directly related to the achievement of its goals only by establishing a separate commercial legal entity; in such a case, the total profit from unrelated activities must not exceed one third of the organisations total annual budget, or 10,000 BAM (approx. 5,000 EUR), whichever amount is higher. In addition, profit generated from unrelated economic activities can only be used for furthering the stated purpose of the organisation. CSOs can be financed by individuals, corporations and other sources, which may be based outside BiH. The funding of CSOs is conducted in accordance with state, entity and cantonal legislation. Recommendations: BCSDN’s Possible others’ Legal:  Look for simplification of accounting standards for CSOs  Unify legislation between the entities of RS and FBiH, as the issue of direct  Look for simplification of requirements for financial reporting taxation (relating to income, profit and property) is specified by the  Closer monitoring fof the practice for individual and corporate giving for Constitution of BiH as a competence of the entities. private and ligale entities form BiH Practice:  Closer monitoring of establishment of endowements  N/A

Result: 2.2. Donations are stimulated with adequate legislation and regulations

Indicator: 2.2.a. Quality and applicability/practice of the legal framework for individual and corporate giving Tax exemptions to CSOs and incentives for charitable donations to the non‐profit sector are still insufficient. Entity laws on corporate income tax provide for monetary donations or donations in kind, to the amount of 3% of total income. The Law on Corporate Income Tax of Physical Entities provides for tax exemption on donations of up to 0.5% in the FBiH and 2% in RS. The Law on Property Tax in the Sarajevo Canton provides exemption for traffic of immovable properties and their ownership only to foundations, religious foundations and pious endowments, while other CSOs are not tax exempt for property ownership or traffic of immovable. The Law does not explicitly specify the timeframe in which a donation must be used, nor does it provide a percentage of the donation that may be used to cover administrative expenses. Pursuant to the Law on Corporate Income Tax of Legal Entities, and the Law on Corporate Income Tax of Physical Entities, in both RS and FBiH activities such as strengthening of democracy, rule of law, fighting corruption, sustainable development, protection of nature etc. are not recognized as activities of general interest. Thus, donations for these purposes do not count as tax-admissible

Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 5 expenditure. VAT is paid on donations in the form of goods/products. CSOs complain that tax exemptions are too low to stimulate a culture of giving in BiH, and also that, as far as individual giving is concerned, as the scheme is only available to individuals who submit annual tax returns (in effect the self-employed), it is far too restricted in scope to generate significant revenues for CSOs. Recommendations: BCSDN’s Possible others’ Legal:  Increase of tax exemption ceiling in order to stimulate culture of giving.  Harmonize the treatment of tax deductions for donations to CSOs from  Promote individual and corporate giving. physical persons who gain income from independent economic activities, and physical persons who gain income from non-independent economic activities  Amend entity laws on profit and income tax as follows: o provide a more extensive list of areas (activities) of general interest; o make specific criteria for activities with general purposes; o regulate the issue of institutional grants; o regulate the issue of donation transfers; o regulate the issue of admissible administrative expenses;  In RS, coordinate the activity list with the Law on Corporate Income Tax and the Law on Associations and Foundations, to expand the narrow definition of the current solution  ensure that tax exemptions are provided for humanitarian, cultural and educational organizations rather than their activities, as the relevant regulations do not currently afford CSOs specific statutory legal treatment, despite the fact that associations, foundations and public institutions conduct these activities  regulate the issue of institutional grants for CSOs, and their admissible administrative expenses; Practice:  N/A

Result: 2.3. Financial (e.g. tax or in-kind) benefits are available

Indicator: 2.3.a. Quality of the system of tax benefits for the CSOs’ operational and economic activities Tax revenues of associations and foundations are regulated by entity laws, which are not harmonized. In FBiH, associations and foundations are exempted by law from the payment of profit and income tax, while in RS this exemption applies only to public institutions and humanitarian organizations. Monetary donations are not directly taxable, either for the donor or receiver (CSO). Gifts and donations made in the form of goods and/or services, and given to CSOs by economic entities, are subject to taxation of donors and donations only if the donor is registered in the VAT system. Monetary donations from physical entities, as well as monetary donations and gifts of goods and services given to CSOs by different institutions are not subject to taxation. Unlike in RS, income from membership fees is not subject to taxation in FBiH. CSOs are fully equal with the profit sector. Laws on associations and foundations on state and entity level (BiH and FBiH), provide for a minimum means test to establish a foundation, to the amount of 2,000 BAM (approx EUR 1,000). RS law does not deem a means test necessary for the establishment of a foundation. Pursuant to the FBiH Law on Corporate Income Tax, CSOs do not pay tax on income realized through similar economic activities, while in RS similar economic activities cannot be commercial in nature. Only humanitarian institutions are exempted. In general, CSOs are fully equal with the profit sector regarding performance of economic activities. Recommendations: BCSDN’s Possible others’ Legal:  Promote tax incentives for CSOs  Key: The set of CSOs eligible for tax exemptions should be harmonized and defined, and entity laws on income tax and profit tax for legal persons should be revised and harmonized with current laws on associations and foundations  Harmonize the tax treatment of CSOs in both BiH entities (FBiH and RS)  Entity laws should provide for a wider definition of the CSO circle concerning tax exemption, as in RS only humanitarian CSOs are not subject to taxation Gifts from physical and legal entities (taxpayers) are currently restricted by a narrow categorization of CSOs to which funds may be donated, and based on which tax may be exempted.  Modify the law so as not to bind foundations to have an initial, basic property  Reduce and harmonize the fee for registration and re-registration Practice:  Initiate of an extensive debate regarding the differences in the nature of economically similar activities in the non-profit sector, and the nature of the profit sector  Maintain statistics about a number of employees in the non-profitable sector, and the contribution of the non-profitable sector to the total BDP.  Specifyparticular tax reliefs – which will facilitate the activities of the CSO sector without disturbing market competition – and an efficient checking system by authorized bodies.  Facilitate the tax liability on donations and grants from foreign or domestic natural or legal persons

Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 6 Result 2.4.: Government support to CSOs is available and provided in a transparent, accountable, fair and non-discriminatory manner

Indicator 2.4.a.: Ratio of amount sought vs. amount approved/disbursed annually through state funding to CSOs (this proves availability of funds) In terms of domestic institutions, financial support is provided by all levels of authorities, municipal, cantonal (in FBiH), entity and state level. This support has always been significant considering that funds allocated to CSOs have always amounted to some 0.5 -0.6 % of country GDP, in line with trends in other countries in the region. The total of 100,006,470.48 BAM allocated for the non-governmental sector in 2012 was divided as follows: o 675,000.00 BAM by BiH at state level o 57,602,954.51 BAM by FBiH o 30,538,566.15 BAM by RS o 11,189,949.15 BAM on BD level. It is also important to note, that in accordance with entity laws on lotteries, 50% of revenue generated from fees paid by lottery organizers is set aside for funding/co-funding CSOs projects and programs. In FBiH, it is a budgetary revenue paid by the BiH Lottery as a public company, while in RS, the RS Lottery and organizers of other games of chance contribute to funds for these purposes. In 2012, a total of 47.6% of institutions participated in the co-funding of CSO projects on the basis of pooled funds, in partnership with other BiH government institutions or foreign partners. The practice of pooling funds is most common at the municipal level (62.9% of total allocated funds), followed by state institutions (50%), then cantonal institutions (25%) and finally, entity-level institutions, at 22.6%.

Indicator 2.4.b.: Quality of state funding frameworks for civil society organisations (focusing on procedural document) There is a lack of strategic documentation on the national level that would address and support civil society development, with clearly stated goals and measures for implementation, clear allocation of responsibilities, and funding available. Strategies exist in several areas, including commitment of state policy towards the institutional development and support of CSOs, and co-funding of projects that contribute to this development. There is no unified mechanism for allocation of public funds to CSOs. Mechanisms/manners of fund allocation depend on the level of authority, and on the institution allocating funds, and are based on the publishing of public calls for funding and regular budget allocations to CSOs. Public funds for CSO are planned within the budget at different authority levels. Procedures vary with the level of authority, and the institution allocating the funds and publishing public calls for funding. Some of those institutions have clear and developed procedures while some do not. In accordance with entity laws on lottery and games of chance, 50% of revenue generated from fees paid by lottery organizers is set aside for funding/co-funding CSOs projects and programs. There are no state bodies with a clear mandate for allocation and/or monitoring of state funds. Monitoring of fund allocation and spending is the responsibility of the institutions allocating the funds, and is dependent on these institutions as well as on the reports of CSOs using the funds. Funding is mainly predictable. Reduced allocations to the civil sector and CSOs have been visible in the last five years. The sums allocated for CSOs can be identified in the budget. Participation of CSOs in the public funding cycle is transparent, in the way that calls for allocation of funds are mainly public and available to all CSOs, and that names of CSOs receiving financial support are by and large public. However, there is no access to the process of project proposal selection, and specific reasons and explanations as to why certain projects have been selected or rejected. There is no unified mechanism for allocation of public funds to CSOs – current mechanisms depend on the level of authority and the institution allocating funds. Procedures can vary significantly in terms of clarity and CSO participation in all phases of the funding cycle. State funding is still insufficiently transparent. The public funds allocation procedure is transparent to the extent that a specific part of funding is allocated through public calls at all authority levels. The criteria published in public calls are to a large extent clear, and are published on time. The laws on conflicts of interest in institutions (BiH, FBiH, RS) regulate issues of conflict of interest in decision-making. Following the procedure for distribution of public funds is not legally binding (Only Code for Good Practices for Funding is prescribed). Information related to funding procedures is made public and limited to information published in the public call. There have been situations where documents the applicant must provide in the application for allocation of funds are not accurately explained, and civil servants are not able to provide a precise additional explanation. Information related to the results of public calls is generally available to the public. Information related to implementation of the project on the ground, project results and influences is generally inaccessible. There is no coordinated manner of procedure monitoring; it varies by institution and level of authority. Conditions are generally not difficult, although this depends on the capacities of individual CSOs. It is considered that a large number of decisions related to public calls are not based on transparent and fair treatment, but rather on personal relations and acquaintances. Situations related to conflict of interest are not announced prior to the procedure. Procedures for allocation of public funds do not generally provide clear measures for accountability, monitoring and evaluation. The most clearly provided measures are those related to monitoring, and comprise the submission of financial and/or narrative CSO reports to institutions allocating the relevant funds It is not known if monitoring is performed constantly and in accordance with previously defined objective and measurable indicators. Monitoring is mainly performed through submission of CSO narratives and/or financial reports to the institutions allocating the funds. It is not known if state bodies perform evaluation of public fund effects/influences. Information on effects/influences is not made public. The law allows state authorities to grant CSOs non-financial support, such as state assets, the renting of space without financial compensation (to a certain limit), free training, consultation and other resources. There is favourable and preferential treatment of certain groups (e.g. veterans’ organizations, organizations of civilian victims of war) that make up a significant part of the voting body). Generally, CSOs use non-financial state support at a local level. Non-financial state support mainly comprises use of workspaces or premises for the organization of particular events. CSOs do not have equal treatment neither among themselves, nor with public institutions, while receiving non-financial support. In the majority of cases, allocation of financial support is based on personal connections and acquaintances. For that very reason, a large number of CSOs receive non-financial support based on political affiliation and loyalty. BiH law allows CSOs to provide certain services, mainly in the area of social services, but also in the areas of health and education. There are no obstacles for health and educational institutions that provide services related to their primary activities. Services that fall outside CSOs’ registered activities, and whose main objective is financial profit, can be provided only through a separate legal entity. The tender procedure is carried out in accordance with the Law on Public Procurement in BiH. Operation of CSOs is equivalent to that of other legal entities. CSOs are able to obtain contracts in competition with others in terms of necessary expertise and skills. However, provision of many services (education, health and social protection) is under state jurisdiction, so CSOs providing these services appear to supplement the work of state institutions, and are usually engaged on a project basis. CSOs generally only provide one part of services required by projects. CSOs are generally not included in needs assessments, determination of specific services, or monitoring and evaluation. Registration/licensing procedures depend on the competent issuing institution. Established registration/licensing procedures are less complicated and shorter than procedures for those licenses and programs that competent institutions have not previously encountered. State financing of services provided by CSOs is mainly based on the allocation of funds through projects. There are no known cases of multi-year funding. There are no barriers preventing CSOs from receiving public funds. There are no data showing that CSOs can sign long-term contracts for the provision of services. Contracts signed by CSOs are mainly short- or medium-term (six months to a year). The signing of long-term contracts is not possible in practice, as the government’s budget allocation takes place on an annual basis. CSOs generally receive funding for the provision of certain services through projects, although they also receive part of their funds via regular budget allocations. CSOs do not receive sufficient funding from the state to cover their basic service costs. State funding is most often combined with much higher funding from foreign donors. CSOs are not able to cover proportional overhead costs with funds allocated to them by the state. Payment dynamics largely depend on the competent institution by which funds are awarded. Some CSOs experienced irregular or late payments.

Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 7 The Law on Public Procurement determines procedure, and guarantees transparency in the process of selecting service providers. There are no clear procedures when funding for services is distributed through different mechanisms. It is generally considered that state institutions have priority or precedence in certain service provision, compared with CSOs. Price is a criterion that separates public and private sector services, but there is no indication that a higher price guarantees higher quality. Transparency of processes is mainly provided through application of the Law on Public Procurement, and by public calls for the financing of projects, which may include the provision of certain services by CSOs. Candidates have the right to appeal competition results, but overall opinion and experience shows that results of public calls will not be revised or changed after receipt of an appeal. Many services are not contracted to CSOs. CSOs generally provide auxiliary or supplementary assistance in the provision of services usually supplied by the state. Alternatively, they provide services for which the state does not have the capacity or interest to supply itself. It is believed that open competitions are unfair in many cases, because applicants have no access to feedback, or the reasons and criteria according to which certain contracts were awarded. There are no procedures in place to prevent conflicts of interest. It is believed that government officials are not competent enough to organize procedures, or to offer the additional explanations and guidelines required by applicants, although this varies between institutions. There are legal possibilities for monitoring service provision by CSOs. Quality standards and monitoring procedures are not strictly defined, and depend on sector legislation and the state institution in question. General opinion and experience is that there is inadequate quality control of services provided by CSOs. Monitoring is mainly based on the submission of financial and/or narrative reports by CSOs to the state institutions that awarded funds for the provision of certain services. In most cases, there is no regular monitoring or evaluation of the quality and effects of services provided. Information about the services provided by CSOs is rarely available to the public. Recommendations: BCSDN’s Possible others’ Legal:  Ensure that legislation recognises quality standards of provision of the services.  Key: Establish mechanisms for the transparent funding of CSO programs and  projects from the budget, that would incorporate rules on the required stages of the award cycle into administrative by-laws (award requirements, monitoring, reporting forms, evaluations, audit reports)  Establish unique system of gathering and publishing all relevant project data, EU- supported projects, and publicly allocated funds  Introduce the practice of drafting framework plans related to necessary budget funds when passing strategies or laws with long term applications  Enable greater participation of CSOs, not only in fund allocations but also in planning budgetary funds for this purpose, including clear procedures for participation of CSOs in the public funding cycle at all authority levels  Make all procedures, criteria and deadlines publicly available and available online  Establish unified and functional mechanism for the allocation of funds to CSOs in BiH on state or entity levels  Extennd application deadlines, specifically the period between the call publication and the proposal submission deadline  Regarding public calls procedures, define provisions related to conflict of interest and monitoring procedures  Harmonize the laws on conflict of interest, with increase of the sanctions and supervision of the parliamentary assemblies on its implementation  Introduce clear sanctions for abuse of state funds  Establish clear, comprehensive and unique measures for accountability, monitoring and evaluation of public fund allocations including field visits of expert teams from the competent state institutions  Introduce mandatory narrative and financial CSO reports, which will be submitted to competent institutions both halfway through and at the end of project implementation  Establish criteria for evaluation of the effects of the project, and coordination of realized and planned results  Through campaigns and requests, exertion of as much influence as possible on state allocation of non-financial support, specifically: free rental of premises; support services; and cooperation with CSOs during program development drafting.  Establish a system and clear procedures based on which non-financial support will be allocated to CSOs in accordance with the objective needs of CSOs and their final users.  Establish of licenses for provision of social services with periodic duration, and commitment to the fulfillment of quality standards.  Simplify procedures and shortening of deadlines for the registration of all legal service-providing entities.  Introduction of simpler procedures and creation of a register for legal entities, that would provide activities related to social entrepreneurship.  When adopting new laws and amendments to existing laws that involve changes to the budget, a period of postponement should be introduced. During this time, the public can be informed about and prepared for the implementation of the new law through awareness-raising campaigns. This delay should also prevent budget reduction during the course of the financial year, which can jeopardize service quality.  Introduction of capabilities that will enable CSOs to obtain long-term contracts for the provision of certain services, to be extended on an annual basis after adoption of the state budget.  Introduction of clear procedures and options (as a base for the funding of services) to be distributed to providers, where they are not already established.  Improvement of standards in all services, and development of standards for social services, alongside the introduction of measurement methods for user satisfaction and service quality, and the publication of obtained results.  Strengthening of transparency so that CSO representatives can participate in selection committees for the awarding of those projects and funds for which they are able to provide services.  Introduction of clear procedures to prevent conflicts of interest for all parties (members of project selection committees) when making decisions regarding the allocation of funds for service provision at all authority levels and in all institutions.  Improvement of procedures for processing complaints and providing answers and Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 8 explanations, regarding initial selection and appeal processes.  Introduce quality standards and monitoring procedures for provision of social services, based on previously established objectives and measurable indicators.  Utilization of campaigns to raise awareness about the need for constant and transparent reviewing of service quality. Practice (BCSDN):  Enhance fund allocation to CSOs based on their respective areas of activity, and priority issues of civil society and society in general.  Allocation of funds should be based on the assessment of needs in different areas and sectors, conducted prior to budget planning, publishing of calls for public funding and allocation of funds.  Establish a state/entity body, responsible for the allocation and monitoring of state funds  Maintaining of continuous funding to CSOs  Provide access and feedback regarding actual reasons for granting or rejecting particular project proposals to interested CSOs  Include CSO representatives from competent areas in the process of selecting project proposals for the allocation of state funds  Introduce a practice to regularly publish a list of organizations and projects allocated public funds on a web page or similar  Strengthen CSO capacities for applying to public calls for allocation of funds through training sessions and the “CSO Info Day”  Enable competent civil servants to provide clear and accurate additional information, guidelines and explanations to potential applicants  Introduce controlling mechanisms to prevent allocation of non-financial support based on political and party membership and/or loyalty  Ensure that the allocation of non-financial support is based on CSOs’ needs, specifically the needs of the targeted population, and final users of CSO services  Recognizing of CSOs as organizations of public importance and interest, and as equal partners to the state in terms of service provision.

Changing relations CSOs and government

Objective 3: Civil society and public institutions work in partnership through dialogue and cooperation, based on willingness, trust and mutual acknowledgment around common interests Result: 3.1. Public institutions recognise the importance of CSOs in improving good governance through CSOs' inclusion in decision-making processes

Indicator: 3.1.a. Percentage of laws/bylaws, strategies and policy reforms effectively* consulted with CSOs * in terms of: adequate access to information, sufficient time to comment, selection and representativeness / diversity of working groups, acknowledgement of input, degree to which input is taken into account, feedback / publication of consultation results

Indicator: 3.1.b Quality* of structures and mechanisms in place for dialogue and cooperation between CSOs and public institutions * in terms of: CSO representation in general, representation of smaller/weaker CSOs, its visibility and availability, government perception of quality of structures and mechanisms, CSOs perception of structures and mechanisms

 43% of CSOs in BiH were consulted in the process of preparation of drafts of local strategies, 36% of local action plans, 34% of specific laws, 26% of national strategies, 18% of national action plans, 14% of IPA programming of EU financial support, 17% of policy documents, 25% were not present in such consultations  76% of CSOs believe that they have adequate access to information  73% of CSOs believe that they have enough time for comments  73% of CSOs believe that their attitudes/positions were not taken into consideration during the consultations, while 25% believe that their inputs were take into consideration  35% of CSOs assessed that there neither feedback nor consultancy results were published, 49% believe there was no feedback, and that some consultancy results were published by the public administration bodies, 16% of CSOs assessed that public administration provided detailed enough feedback, and consultancy results were easily available to all parties  14% of CSOs stated that are not familiar with the structures and mechanisms between CSOs and governments, 68% state that are familiar, but do not believe that they have actual use, 18% stated that are familiar with the structures and mechanisms and consider them useful  12% of CSOs stated that are not familiar with the structures and mechanisms for cooperation with local governments, 62% stated that are familiar, but believe that they have no actual use, and 26% stated that are familiar with the structures and mechanisms and consider them useful  25% CSOs believe that attending the consultations, 20% that providing suggestions, and 22% that promotion of importance of European integration is the most important role CSOs have for monitoring the process of reporting on country’s progress towards EU

The Cooperation Agreement between the BiH Council of Ministers and the NGO Sector in BiH, signed in 2007, has established a general institutional framework for cooperation and dialogue between the state and CSOs, but its implementation failed to occur. There is no functional institutional mechanism for cooperation between the state and civil society. The Agreement on Cooperation between the BiH Council of Ministers and the Non-governmental sector in BiH (2007) represents the key mechanism of cooperation between CSOs and the Council of Ministers in BiH, through clearly stated principles and goals. The Strategy and Action Plan for the Creation of an Enabling Environment for the Development of a Sustainable Civil Society was initiated by the BiH Ministry of Justice, but was stopped. The Agreement on Cooperation between the BiH Council of Ministers and the Non-governmental sector in BiH is not being realized. There is currently no clearly defined mechanism or methodology for monitoring and evaluation. The Council of Ministers passed the Decision on the Establishment of the Working Group for the Strategy for Creation of an Enabling Environment for the Development of a Sustainable Civil Society, along with an Action Plan for its implementation. Civil society representatives, proposed by the BiH Ministry of Justice, were not elected in a transparent manner. Cooperation between CSOs and governance has been particularly improved at local level; the Agreement between the Municipal Council, Mayor and Non-Governmental Organizations was signed in 100 municipalities in BiH. Additionally, agreements were signed between the governments of Sarajevo Canton and Bosnian Podrinje Canton, and the non-governmental sectors within their jurisdictions.

Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 9 The Law on Freedom of Access to Information stipulates exceptions in terms of justifiable reasons why certain information cannot be communicated. The legal framework prescribes publicly exposed policies and drafting laws. The Law on Free Access to Information in BiH, FBiH, and RS regulates procedures for disclosure of information over which public authorities have control. According to the Law on Free Access to Information in BiH, a stipulated sum is required to be paid if a public body or official does not comply with the Law. Entity laws do not prescribe sanctions/penalties for non-compliance with the Law. Drafts of laws and policies are published on websites by some institutions at state level. At entity level, the practice of publishing draft policies is common in RS, while in FBiH only a small number of institutions comply. In BD, legislation of interest to the public is announced. At cantonal level, a percentage of draft laws are published on official websites, while at the municipal level most draft laws and policies are published on the relevant municipality’s website. Adopted laws and regulations are not always published on the websites of competent ministries, which are not regularly updated. In practice it is very difficult for CSOs to obtain accurate information. Most institutions do not adhere to the timeframe regarding the announcement of deadline extensions. According to available data, no one has yet been charged with a criminal offense for violations of the Law on Free Access to Information in BiH. Institutions are not legally obliged to involve CSOs in the work of advisory or other bodies. Agreement on Cooperation between the BiH Council of Ministers and the non-governmental sector defines the obligations of the Council, and guidelines relating to the assessment of policies, procedures and consultations in the civil society sector. In order to strengthen cooperation between authorities and civil society, establishment of SECO mechanisms (non-institutional mechanisms) was initiated for five sectors of civil society, to be involved in the consultation process on IPA Funds II (2014-2020). There are examples of good practice (BiH Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Human Rights and Refugees) regarding CSO involvement in working groups for certain laws, regulations and strategies. Despite these examples, there are still no clear and transparent mechanisms by which representatives of CSOs are elected to work in decision-making and policy-making bodies. At state level, the Sector for Legal Aid (Sector for Civil Society until late-2013) operates within the BiH Ministry of Justice, and is responsible for activities aimed at creating a favorable environment for civil society development in BiH. The Regulations on Consultations in Legislative Drafting ensure the participation of citizens and CSOs in the consultation process, and participation in the formulation and implementation of public policy. BiH Council of Ministers has taken some concrete steps aimed at improving the consultations process and brining it closer to the citizens. Thus, a web portal for public consultations at the level of BiH CoM is currently under construction. There are no legislative or institutional mechanisms in place regulating cooperation with civil society for FBiH. In the RS, the legislative framework for engagement of citizens in decision-making process has been set up in form of Guidelines for action of Republic bodies of management on participation of public and consultation in drafting laws and to a certain extent it is being implemented. Still, those Guidelines need further amendments in order to ensure efficient consultations with the public. Resources and authorities of the (former) Sector for Civil Society within the BiH Ministry of Justice have not been, nor are (as the current Sector for Legal Aid) sufficient for facilitating dialogue between CSOs and the government. There is no adequate system of communication and cooperation with CSOs, nor is there regular reporting or monitoring on the situation of civil society in BiH. CSOs are occasionally and selectivley consulted and included in decision-making processes on behalf of institutions.The cooperation between authorities and CSOs at the level of FBIH remains quite limited. In spring 2013, the FBiH Parliament created a CSOs register in order to consult them when a legal act is drafted. Having in mind that this register has been introduced recently, it is still too early to assess the actual use of this register. Existing standards for the participation of CSOs in decision-making processes include: Uniform Rules for Legislative Drafting in BiH; Rules for Consultation in Legislative Drafting in BiH institutions; Guidelines for Actions of the Republic’s Administrative Bodies on Public Participation in Legislative Drafting; public hearings; initiatives for proposing legislation; public debate; local communities; open days; municipal mayors’ days (municipality statutes); and a presence in municipal assemblies/councils (municipality statutes). On the basis of the training programs of the Agency for Civil Service for 2013, there is no specific training program for civil servants on the participation of CSOs in the work of public institutions. In addition, the Strategy for Improvement of FBiH Civil Servants does not recognize this subject in its Action Plan. The Rules for Consultation in Legislative Drafting in BiH institutions, and the Guidelines for Actions of the Republic’s Administrative Bodies on Public Participation in Legislative Drafting require the appointment of a coordinator to invite CSOs to participate in the consultation process. Institutions do not routinely invite all interested CSOs to comment on the process of policy and law creation. The list of interested CSOs is held by three state ministries, and partially fulfills obligations arising from the Rules for Consultation. With regard to public participation, ministries in RS follow the Guidelines for RS Administrative Bodies. The Rules of Consultation formally provide CSOs with timely access to draft documents and participation in the preparation of given legal documents, but this is substantially different in practice. There is no broad and systematic use of the Rules of Consultation. Consultations are carried out only for those laws and regulations that have an impact on the public. The Parliament of FBiH has a CSO database, but as yet it has not been used. The abovementioned Rules and Guidelines envisage obligatory publication of draft documents on the website of the institution involved. In practice, three state ministries and all RS ministries fully comply with this obligation. Documents are also posted on most cantonal and municipality websites, as well as that of the Government of BD. On a municipality level, the municipality itself enables insight into draft documents concerning the organization of assemblies of citizens. There is no enough time to write qualitative comments for further analysis. In practice, institutions rarely send this feedback. Persons appointed to coordinate the consultation process (including all resulting tasks and obligations) are expected to add this work to their existing duties and obligations. There is an evident lack of time and material resources, and of adequate training to improve the work of these coordinators with CSOs. Despite some improvements, capacities and procedures for strategic planning, coordination and public policies development, as well as monitoring and evaluation at all authority levels, are still insufficient and very limited. Recommendations: BCSDN’s Possible others’ Legal:  N/A  Key: Establishment of a functional institutional mechanism (Office for Cooperation with the Non-governmental Sector) within the Council of Ministers for its cooperation with civil society, in accordance with the Cooperation Agreement  Key: In cooperation with CSOs, production of the Strategy for Creation of an Enabling Environment for the Development of a Sustainable Civil Society, along with a state-level Action Plan for its implementation, monitoring and evaluation  Develop the Strategy for Creation of an Enabling Environment for the Development of a Sustainable Civil Society, along with a state-level Action Plan  Develop clear specification of participants and working methodology for the strategic planning process for the Startegy  Modifyregulations, by which citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina would be able to watch and listen to the relevant decision-making sessions transmitted directly through the Public Broadcasting Service  Amend the entity Law on Freedom of Access to Information, in compliance with state law, to notify the applicant regarding deadlines, as well as penalties for public authorities and responsible persons in the case of non-compliance with the Law.  Ensure adequate application of international standards in provision of access to documents, laws and information without paying a registration fee.  Adopt legislation that would enable participation of representatives of CSOs in various bodies, where decisions are made on the basis of clear and transparent criteria at all levels of government  Key: Change and harmonize existing Rules of Consultation and adopt and implement them on all levels of government where such rules do not Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 10 already exist  Establish a functional institutional mechanism (Office for Cooperation with the Non- governmental Sector) within the Council of Ministers for its cooperation with civil society, in accordance with the Cooperation Agreement  Establish the Council for Civil Society Development of the BiH Council of Ministers, as well as of mechanisms at lower levels of government, that would be similar or identical to those at state level  Establish more effective and inclusive models and mechanisms for consultation with CSOs in relation to key reform issues of the stabilization and accession process to the EU  Enable establishment of units for cooperation with civil society, through amendments and changes to regulations of the internal organization of ministries and other institutions at all administrative levels in BiH, and harmonization of the method of election of the coordinator for public consultations Practice (BCSDN):  Monitor implementation of the Agreement on Cooperation between the BiH Council of Ministers and the NGO sector in BiH  Enable f the systematic involvement of CSOs in public policy creation at all authority levels, through various forms of informal information exchange and consultation (forums, focus groups, workshops, roundtables, etc.), and the inclusion of representatives of civil society in permanent and temporary working bodies, commissions and committees  Provide a broader and more systematic use of the Rules for Consultation in legislation drafting, not only in the creation process of ad hoc draft laws and legal documents, but also in the process of policy development  Establish of an interactive database of CSOs according to field of activity, for all institutions and ministries in BiH  Establishof a regular reporting obligation on cooperation of ministries/institutions and CSOs, related to the inclusion of CSOs in public policy/legislation creation  Empowerf CSOs to use existing mechanisms for participation in public policy/legislation creation, through continuous training  Strengthen capacities of CSOs in terms of their analytical approach to comment- creation, and the use of normative rules in this process  Provide adequate training for civil servants and key decision makers (ministers, deputy and assistant ministers, etc.)

CSOs Capacities

Objective 4.: Capable, transparent and accountable CSOs Result 4.1.: CSOs' internal governance structures are transparent and accountable to members/constituents/beneficiaries

Indicator 4.1.a.: Percentage of CSOs publishing their governance structure and internal documents (statutes, codes of conduct etc.)  20% of CSOs believe that decision making in CSOs in BiH is in compliance with prescribed rules and laws of the organisation, 56% believe that decisions are made by some individual or top management, 23% that decisions are made with prescribed rules including consultations with the employees and volunteers

 39% of CSOs stated that decision making in their organisation is in compliance with prescribed rules and laws of the organisation, 23% stated that decisions are made by some individual or top management, 37% that decisions are made with prescribed rules including consultations with the employees and volunteers

 94% of CSOs stated that they have prescribed obligations to inform the members, or Managerial or Supervisory Board, customers or general public about the results of your work

 96% CSOs inform members of their organisation about the results of their work, 93% inform founders of their organisation, 90% inform management board, 90% inform beneficiaries of their organisation,91% inform general public, 94% general assembly, and 73% inform supervisory board

Result 4.2.: CSOs are able to communicate the results of their activities to the public

Indicator 4.2.a.: External perception of importance and impact of CSOs activities.  49.7% of surveyed trust to NGOs in their country, general population trust the most to police 66.7% and media 66.2% of surveyed, and the least to political parties 13.5% of surveyed

 46.5% of general population do not trust to NGOs

 50.1% of the general population believes that NGOs support dealing with problems in their country, 66.2% of population believe that police supports in dealing with problems, and political party support the least 17.0%

 51% of CSOs believe that the reason for lack of public presence of CSOs is insufficient interest of the media in reporting on CSOs activities, while 49% of CSOs believe it is due insufficient (or inadequate) CSO activities

 Among topics and issues listed in the survey almost all were over 90% of its relevance, only culture and art was 89%, and rural development was 87% 1

 67% of surveyed believe that CSOs in their country are active in fighting problems in human rights area, 63% believe in the area of women rights, and 61% in social care and humanitarian activities

1 Topics and issues assessed included: education, social care and humanitarian activities, human rights, employment, the young and their problems, culture and art, ecology, violence, rights of women, fight against corruption, fight agaiinst drug abuse and aloholism, safety, overseen government and local governemnets performances, rural development, protection of animals. Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 11  66% of surveyed believe that CSOs in their country are not active in fighting problems in rural development and employment, 63% believe in the area of safety, and 59% in overseening government and local government performances and fight against corruption

Result 4.3.: CSOs are transparent about their programme activities and financial management

Indicator 4.3.a.: Percentage of CSOs making their (audited) financial accounts and annual reports publicly available  39% CSOs stated that they publish their statute on their web page, 36% stated that the statute is accessible to the public, 25% stated that the statute is not accessible to the public

 81% of CSOs stated that their statute is accessible to public from their office

 14% of CSOs stated that they have a rulebook and it available on their web page, 27% stated that they have a rulebook, 14% stated that have a rulebook, but it is not accessible to the public, and 30% stated that they do not have a rulebook

 38% of CSOs believe that up to 10% of CSOs in BiH publish organisational Annual Program Statement of Work, 27% believe that only 11-30% of CSOs do so, 28% believe that 31%-70% organisation publish APS of Work, and 6% believe that more than 70% do so

 24% of CSOs stated that they publish their APS of Work on their web page, and 36% stated that they do not have APS of Work accessible to public

 50% of CSOs belie that up to 10% of CSOs publish organisational financial reports, 20% of CSOs believe that 11%-30% publish financial report, 20% believe that from 31-70% and 23% of CSOs believe that more than 10% of CSO publish financial reports

 18% of CSOs stated that they have financial reports accessible to public and published on the web page, while 40% stated they do not have financial reports available to the public

 58% of CSOs believe that up to 10% of CSOs publish audited reports, and 11% believe that more than 70% publish audited reports

 12% of CSOs stated that they have audited financial reports accessible to the public by publishing it on their web page, 49% of CSOs stated that they do not have audited financial reports available to the public

Result 4.4.: CSOs monitor and evaluate the results and impact of their work

Indicator 4.4.a: Share of CSOs that monitor and evaluate their projects and programmes using baselines and quality indicators  30% of CSOs evaluate their projects pro forma, while 70% evaluate projects with the purpose of establishing efficiency and drawing a lesson for further projects

 26% of CSOs use external evaluation for realisation of their projects

 17% use external evaluator for assessment of implementation of their organisational strategy

 74% of CSOs have established system for assessment of efficiency for realisation of conducted projects

 62% of CSOs have established system for assessment for implementation of organisation’s strategic plan

Objective 5.: Effective CSOs Result 5.1.: CSO activities are guided by strategic long-term organisational planning

Indicator 5.1.a: Share of CSOs which have developed strategic plans including human resources development activities in order to attract and retain talent  67% of CSOs have developed strategic plan, 16% do not have a strategic plan

 88% use internal evaluation when employing staff in their organisation

 51% of CSOs neither have established system for assessment of efficiency of employees in their organisation, nor 38% have internal strategic plan dealing with these issues

 26% of CSOs stated that they have a human resources development plan aimed at attacking and keeping talented associates, while 53% stated that they do not have such plan

 72% of CSO stated that they manage to keep talented associates, and 81% believe that they manage to attract quality new people

Result 5.2.: CSOs use research and other forms of evidence to underpin their activities

Indicator 5.2.a.: Number of CSOs' who use adequate argumentation and analysis for achieving advocacy goals  61% of CSOs active in public advocacy, mainly/frequently uses research for their advocacy actions, while 39% of them mainly/very rarely use research Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 12  74% of CSOs believe that they have enough information at their disposal

 43% of CSOs use official data of national statistical offices, ministries, 38% conduct their own studies

Result 5.3.: CSOs regularly network within and outside country borders and make use of coalition-building for increased impact in campaigning and advocacy

Indicator 5.3.a: Share of CSOs taking part in local, national, regional and international networks  49% of CSOs indicated that they do not belong to any international network, 25% stated that belong to one international network, 12% stated that they belong to 2 international networks, 14% belong to more than 3 international networks

 18% of CSOs are not active in any of international networks, 47% are active in one international network, 17% are active in 2 international networks, and 19% are active in more than 3 international networks

 33% of CSOs indicated that they do not belong to any national network, 23% stated that belong to one national network, 14% stated that they belong to 2 national networks, 29% belong to more than 3 national networks

 10% of CSOs are not active in any of national networks, 36% are active in one national network, 20% are active in 2 national networks, and 34% are active in more than 3 national networks

 38% of CSOs indicated that they do not belong to any local network, 25% stated that belong to one local network, 14% stated that they belong to 2 local networks, 23% belong to more than 3 local networks

 8% of CSOs are not active in any of local networks, 38% are active in one local network, 21% are active in 2 local networks, and 32% are active in more than 3 local networks

 47% of CSOs do not find CSO networks efficient, while 53% find them efficient

 13% of CSO stated that their contributed in terms of the exchange of experience/knowledge from being member of a network, 28% stated that had a greatest benefit from the network in access to information/ exchange of information

Objective 6.: Financially sustainable CSOs Result 6.1.: Fund-raising activities are rooted in CSOs' long-term strategic plans and the core mission of the organisation

Indicator 6.1.a.: Percentage of CSOs that confirm that they are able to raise funds according to their strategic plans  83% of CSOs believe that CSOs in BiH mainly adopt to donors’ priorities and collect funds also for other activities not in line with their organisational strategic plan, while 17% of CSOs believe that CSOs in BiH mainly stich with their strategic plan and collect funds for activities in line with their strategic plan

 59% of CSOs stated that they mainly stick t their strategic plans and collects fund for activities in line with its strategic plan, while 41% stated that they adapt to donors’ priorities and collect funds also for other activities not in line with its strategic plans

Result 6.2.: CSO have a diversified funding base, including membership fees, corporate/individual giving and social entrepreneurship

Indicator 6.2.a.: Diversity in CSO sources of income  4% of CSOs stated that they did not have any donors in the past year, 20% had one donor, 37% had between 2-3 donors, 19% had 4-5 donors, and 20% over 6 donors

 59% of CSOs had income from membership fees, 40% had from citizens, 22% form local self-government and/or regional administration, 26% from other foreign private or state resources, 28% form the EU funds, 24% form governments/ministries/state administration bodies, 22% from private companies operating in the country, 11% from public companies

Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 13 Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 14 Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 15 Objectives Results Indicator Baseline findings Scoring Recommendations Conducive environment 1. . An enabling legal and 1.1. All individuals and legal entities can express themselves freely, assemble peacefully and establish, join and participate in non-formal and/or registered organisations policy environment, 1.1.a. Quality assessment of existing legislation and policy framework

Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 16 for the exercise of the Freedom of establishment and participation in informal/ formal Freedom of establishment and participation in informal/ formal 22/100 Freedom of establishment and participation in informal/ formal rights of freedom, organisations online/offline of individuals/ organisations organisations online/offline of individuals/ organisations organisations online/ offline of individuals/ organisations expression, assembly Legislation: (10) Legislation: Legislation (BCSDN): and association, 1) There is a legal framework according to which any person can  Freedom of association is guaranteed by the constitutional and legal  Abolition of the mandatory initial capital for establishing a establish associations, foundations and other types of non-profit, framework and recognized international documents. foundation at state and entity (FBiH) levels. non-governmental entities (e.g., non-profit company) for any  The Laws on Associations and Foundations (on state, entity, and  Passing of legislation which would regulate the status of purpose. (1.1.1.L1) Brčko District levels) stipulate that any person or legal entity can humanitarian organizations, at both state and entity levels. 2) The legal framework allows both individual and legal persons to form an association or foundation, for any purpose in accordance  Formation of a unique CSO registry, to provide information on exercise this right without discrimination (age, nationality, legal with the Constitution and legislative framework. An association may CSOs in BiH, and which would enable access to the exact number capacity, gender etc). (1.1.1.L2) be established by a minimum of three physical or legal entities. A and structure of CSOs. 3) Registration is not mandatory, and in cases when organizations foundation may be established by one or more physical or legal  Unification of registration procedures and related expenses at all decide to register, the registration rules are clearly prescribed and entities. The Executive Board of the foundation must have at least levels of government for all CSOs in BiH. allow for easy, timely and inexpensive registration and appeal three members. To establish a foundation in BiH and FBiH, an initial Legislation (possible other): process (1.1.1.L3) capital of 2000 BAM is required (approx. 1000 EUR).  Seek for further liberalisation of CSOs theritorial area of 4) The law allows for networking among organizations in the countries  There is no adequate legislation on humanitarian organizations. coverage regardless of their place of registration. and abroad without prior notification. (1.1.1.L4)  Registration is voluntary and clearly governed by state, entity, Practice (10): cantonal and BD laws and regulations. There is no single registry for 1) Every individual or legal entity in practice can form associations, CSOs in BiH; CSOs are registered at an administrative level, foundations or other non-profit, non-governmental organizations according to the scope of their activities as provided by the relevant offline or online. (1.1.1.P1) statutes. Fees for registration differ between administrative levels. 2) Individuals and legal entities are not sanctioned for not-registering  Associations may establish networks or other forms of their organizations. (1.1.1.P2) collaboration, and freely affiliate and cooperate with international 3) Registration is truly accessible within the legally prescribed organizations with a view of promoting the same rights and deadlines; authorities decide on cases in non-subjective and interests. apolitical manner. (1.1.1.P3) Practice 4) Individuals and CSOs can form and participate in networks and  In some cases the registration procedure for associations/umbrella Practice (BCSDN): coalitions, within and outside their home countries. (1.1.1.P4) associations was extremely prolonged, and citizens continued with  Establishment of the option of online registration at all their activities as informal associations. The option of online administrative levels in BiH. registration does not exist at any level.

Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 17  Registration of CSOs is voluntary. Upon registration, the association  Conducting of analysis of the registration process in all relevant or foundation acquires the status of legal entity. ministries, with emphasis on its problems.  In most cases, CSOs find registration simple (56% of surveyed CSOs),  Lowering of registration costs. and the process is completed within the prescribed 30 days (FBiH) Practice (possible other): ans 15 days (RS). A significant number of CSOs still face different  Same as BCSDN’s restrictions during the registration process (additional requirements, name changes, different interpretations of the law). The majority of CSOs find registration expensive (60% of surveyed CSOs found costs for registration disproportionately high). Additional costs for registering can vary significantly.  When registered at the state level, CSOs can operate throughout Freedom of CSOs operations in relation to unwarranted state the country while registration in one entity only can hinder activities interference in CSOs’ internal governance and activities in the other entity, particularly if the CSO is involved in employing Legislation (15): people in the other entity (due to problems with different tax 5) The legal framework provides guarantees against state interference authorities). A CSO can also register at both the state and entity in internal matters of associations, foundations and other types of level. 2 non-profit entities. (1.1.2.L1)  There are more than 50 CSO networks and coalitions in BiH. 6) The state provides protection from interference by third parties. (1.1.2.L2) Freedom of CSOs operations in relation to unwarranted state 7) Financial reporting (including money laundering regulations) and interference in CSOs’ internal governance and activities accounting rules take into account the specific nature of the CSOs Legislation Freedom of CSOs operations in relation to unwarranted state and are proportionate to the size of the organization and its  The legal framework provides guarantees against state interference interference in CSOs’ internal governance and activities type/scope of activities. (1.1.2.L3) in the internal matters of associations and foundations. Legislation (BCSDN): 8) Sanctions for breaching legal requirements should be based on  No explicit legal provision exists to ensure protection from  N/A applicable legislation and follow the principle of proportionality. interference by third parties when exercising freedom of Legislation (possible other): (1.1.2.L4) association.  Seek for explicit provision in the legislation that will 9) The restrictions and the rules for dissolution and termination meet  Registered CSO are obliged to comply with entity laws and the standards of international law and are based on objective ensure protection from interference by the third parties. regulations on accounting, as prescribed by International Practice: criteria which restrict arbitrary decision making. (1.1.2.L5) Accounting Standards, and are required to send yearly financial  N/A Practice (5): reports in standardized forms to the entity level Agencies for

2 BiH Need Assessment Report, TACSO, December 2013 Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 18 There are no cases of state interference in internal matters of Finance and Informatics Services. These forms vary between Practice (possible other): associations, foundations and other types of non-profit entities. entities, as to which aspects of the specific nature of CSOs are taken  Closer monitoring of the mpact of money laundering legal (1.1.2.P1) into consideration. Most CSOs are categorized as small legal provision on the operations of the CSOs 1) There are no practices of invasive oversight to which impose entities, and thus are not subject to the statutory audit of financial  Closer monitoring of the cases of intrusion of competent burdensome reporting requirements. (1.1.2.P2) statements. bodies in the work of CSOs. 2) Sanctions are applied in rare/extreme cases, they are proportional  Control over the legality of association and foundation activities is and are subject to a judicial review (1.1.2.P3) administered by the competent administrative body, and involves 3) monitoring the situation as it relates to association or foundation activities.  The association or foundation can be terminated voluntary, or by force of law. Practice  Most CSOs reported that the government did not interfere in their internal affairs, although there were isolated cases of direct state interference in the internal matters of associations. There is no record of a CSO being terminated by force of law.  There are some examples of intrusion by competent bodies, usually politically motivated and mainly expressed through repeated inspections (financial, labor, trade, sanitary). Sanctions that CSOs or individuals incur in this manner are most often based on legal provisions, which are rarely, if ever, enforced. Most CSOs did not experience any form of inspection by competent authorities.  There are some examples of intrusion by competent bodies, usually politically motivated and mainly expressed through repeated inspections (financial, labor, trade, sanitary). Sanctions that CSOs or individuals incur in this manner are most often based on legal provisions, which are rarely, if ever, enforced. Most CSOs did not experience any form of inspection by competent authorities.  In most cases, CSOs do not initiate administrative disputes against the decisions or sanctions of authorized bodies.

Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 19 Freedom of CSOs in seeking and securing financial resources from Freedom of CSOs in seeking and securing financial resources from various domestic and foreign sources to support CSOs’ activities various domestic and foreign sources to support CSOs’ activities Legislation: Legislation:  CSOs in BiH have the option to acquire income through economic 1) Legislation allows CSOs to engage in economic activities (1.1.3.L1) activities. In FBiH, unlike in RS, this income is not subject to taxation. Freedom of CSOs in seeking and securing financial resources from 2) CSOs are allowed to receive foreign funding (1.1.3.L2)  For performance of non-similar economic activities CSOs operate as various domestic and foreign sources to support CSOs’ activities 3) CSO are allowed to receive funding from individuals, corporations a component of the profit sector. The profit can be used exclusively Legislation (BCSDN): and other sources (1.1.3.L3) for statutory determined objectives.  Unification of legislation between the entities of RS and FBiH, as Practice:  CSOs can be financed by individuals, corporations and other the issue of direct taxation (relating to income, profit and 1) Legislation on CSOs engaging in economic activities is implemented sources, which may be based outside BiH. property) is specified by the Constitution of BiH as a competence and is not burdensome for CSOs. (1.1.3.P1)  CSOs can be financed by individuals, corporations and other of the entities. 2) There are no restrictions (e.g. administrative or financial burden, sources, which may be based outside BiH. Legislation (possible other): preapprovals, or channelling such funds via specific bodies) on CSOs Practice: Same as BCSDN’s to receive foreign funding. (1.1.3.P2)  The funding of CSOs is conducted in accordance with state, entity 3) Receipt of funding from individuals, corporations and other sources and cantonal legislation. is easy, effective and without any unnecessary cost or  There are no restrictions on CSOs regarding funding they may administrative burden. (1.1.3.P3) receive from outside BiH. Practice (BCSDN):  N/A Practice (possible other):  Seek for more information in relation to provisions and Freedom of peaceful assembly of CSOs’ representatives, individuals or benefits related to individual and corporate giving within CSOs the BiH Freedom of peaceful assembly of CSOs’ representatives, individuals or Legislation: CSOs  Freedom of peaceful assembly is guaranteed by the constitutions, Legislation: ECHR, positive regulations and international documents. This Freedom of peaceful assembly of CSOs’ representatives, 1) The legal framework is based on international standards and freedom may only be restricted by the law. individuals or CSOs provides the right for freedom of assembly for all without any  Peaceful organized assemblies are regulated by cantonal Laws on Legislation (BCSDN): discrimination (1.2.1.L1). public assembly in the FBiH (2012), and by the RS Law on Public  Carrying out of analysis and amendments of existing laws on 2) The laws recognize and do not restrict spontaneous, simultaneous Assembly (2008). These laws recognize peaceful and organized public assembly, taking into account the recommendations of the and counter-assemblies (1.2.1.L2) assemblies, but contain a broad range of restrictions regarding the Venice Commission, and democratic standards and principles 3) The exercise of the right is not subject to prior authorization by the public spaces citizens can use to exercise their rights in this regard.

Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 20 authorities, but at the most to a prior notification procedure,  While the laws generally state the principles governing freedom of regulating and actualizing the objectives of the right to peaceful which is not burdensome. (1.2.1.L3) assembly correctly, they tend to overregulate conditions for assembly and protests. 4) Any restriction of the right based on law and prescribed by exercising the constitutionally guaranteed right of assembly. The Act  Abolition of municipal fees for the use of public spaces for the regulatory authority can be appealed by organizers (1.2.1.L4) on Public Assembly of the Sarajevo Canton is seen as rather detailed non-economic activities of CSOs in RS. Practice: in stipulating conditions for exercising the constitutionally Legislation (possible other): 1) There are no cases of encroachment of the freedom of assembly, guaranteed right of assembly. the RS Law stipulates that a space  Same as BCSDN’s and any group of people can assemble at desired place and time, in appropriate for public assemblies but peaceful assemblies cannot line with the legal provisions. (1.2.1.P1) be held “in the vicinity of specially secured facilities, to a distance of Practice: 2) Restrictions are justified with explanation of the reason for each at least 50 meters”. According to decisions by local self-government  Development of mechanisms for collecting information related to restriction, which is promptly communicated in writing to the units in RS, associations are obliged to pay a fee for using a public cases of disturbance, apprehensions and police interrogations of organizer to guarantee the possibility of appeal. space, even though public space should not be used for economic civil society activists, as well as intellectuals and human rights 3) (1.2.1.P2) Simultaneous, spontaneous and counter-assemblies can gain. defenders. take place, and the state facilitates and protects groups to exercise  Peaceful assembly may be prohibited pursuant to these laws.  Promotion of cooperation between CSOs and the police through their right against people who aim to prevent or disrupt the  Practice: good practice, and strengthen the mechanisms of civilian assembly. (1.2.1.P3)  According to information obtained from the media, in the last two monitoring of the police. 4) There are cases of freedom of assembly practiced by CSOs years there have been several cases of interrogations and  Education of police and security agencies about human rights and (individually or through their organizations) without prior harassment of citizens and civil society activists by the police, fundamental freedoms. authorization; when notification is required it is submitted in a related to their participation in peaceful assemblies. Practice (possible other): short period of time and does not limit the possibility to organize  In most cases, there is a clear process for obtaining authorization for  Same as BCSDN’s the assembly. (1.2.1.P4) organizing an assembly. Restrictions are based on laws, and the 5) No excessive use of force is exercised by law enforcement bodies, organizer may file a complaint if he or she is denied permission for a including pre-emptive detentions of organizers and participants. peaceful assembly. (1.2.1.P5)  There are frequent organized protests throughout BiH, as well as an 6) Media should have as much access to the assembly as possible increasing number of simultaneous and spontaneous citizen-led (1.2.1.P6) assemblies/protests.  Generally, no excessive use of force is exercised by law enforcement agencies  There are no official statistics or publicly accessible information in BiH police harassment, apprehension and interrogation of civil society activists. Based on information from the media, several such cases have been registered in the past two years, most often among

Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 21 protesters. Participants of the JMBG protests were subject to “special investigative actions”, and some activists and protest leaders were interrogated at the police station.  Assemblies are reported on by the media.

Freedom of expression of individuals or through their organisations Legislation:  The right to freedom of expression, and the collection and Freedom of expression of individuals or through their organisations dissemination of information is guaranteed by the BiH Constitution Legislation and relevant laws. 1) The legal framework provides freedom of expression for all  Existing criminal laws do not encompass the positive obligations of (1.2.2.L1) Article 10 of the ECHR, which stipulate that the state must Freedom of expression of individuals or through their 2) Restrictions, such as limitation of hate speech, imposed by guarantee freedom of expression by creating a safe environment in organisations legislation are clearly prescribed and in line with international law which this can take place. Legislation (BCDN): and standards (1.2.2.L2)  In terms of public criticism, state and government authorities do not  Development of methodologies and constant monitoring by CSOs 3) Libel is a misdemeanor rather than part of the penal code have a higher level of protection within the legal framework than on expression of the right to freedom of speech in current (1.2.2.L3) citizens, CSOs, activists or journalists. legislation. Practice:  While the legislative framework prohibits hate speech, it does not  Development of joint educational programs for judges, CSOs and 1) CSO representatives, especially those from human rights and watch categorically or comprehensively define it, or the means of the media by applying the practices of the ECHR in Strasbourg, dog organizations enjoy the right to freedom of expression on protection against it. Existing regulations do not comply with specifically Article 10. matters they support and they are critical of. (1.2.2.P1) international laws and standards. Denial of Holocaust, genocide and  Development of strategies for CSO and media involvement in the 2) There are no cases of encroachment of the right to freedom of war crimes is not punished. free legal aid program. expression for all. (1.2.2.P2)  The authorities in FBiH and RS did not express a readiness to accept  Adoption of amendments to criminal laws to ensure protection of 3) There are no cases where individuals, including CSO representatives amendments to criminal laws for the definition of hate crimes, as the right to freedom of expression, and precise definition of the would be persecuted for critical speech, in public or private. proposed by the Coalition for Combatting Hate Speech. crimes "hate speech" and "hate crime". (1.2.2.P3)  BiH was the first country in the region to decriminalize libel (the Law  Harmonization of the Law on Defamation between entities, state 4) There is no sanction for critical speech, in public or private, under on Defamation), removing the possibility of criminal conviction for the penal code. (1.2.2.P4) and BD, to stipulate precisely the responsibility for libel any person publicly expressing an opinion. concerning: the author; the bearer of the defamatory statement; Practice: and/or the media outlet that published the content.  In practice, there is greater legal and institutional protection of Legislation (possible other): public officials than of citizens and CSO activists. CSO activists and

Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 22 journalists are exposed to many forms of open and/or concealed  Same as BCSDN’S pressure and obstruction to their work, because of their critical observations on public authorities.  National minorities are not guaranteed the right to use their native Practice (BCSDN): languages in public communication, nor to obtain information.  Establishment of a CSO cross-sectoral lobby group, for the  In most cases, the courts follow the standards and judgments of the protection and public defense of the right to freedom of European Court as they relate to the protection of freedom of expression. expression. There are examples of unequal treatment by courts  Improvement of the protection of CSO activists and journalists as when applying the Law on Defamation. This is the result of the human rights defenders. political and administrative organization of the country, which has Practice (possible other): two parallel judicial systems in its entities  Same as BCSDN’s  CSOs representatives are victims of hate speech in a significant number of cases. They are subjected to verbal and other attacks, because of their willingness to speak critically in public. Fore example, Štefica Galić, a CSO representative and journalist, was beaten and verbally abused in her hometown of Ljubuški (predominantly populated by Bosnian Croats) after a screening of “Neđo from Ljubuški”, a film about her late husband, who saved many Bosniak families during the war.

Rights of CSOs representatives, individuals and through their organisations to safely receive and impart information through any media Legislation: Rights of CSOs representatives, individuals and through their  Freedom of expression and obtaining of information, as well as organisations to safely receive and impart information through any access to all channels of communication, are guaranteed by the media national judicial system and the Law on Communications. Legislation:  Proposed amendments to the Law on Free Access to Information 1) The legal framework provides the possibility to communicate via (LFAI) reduce the right to access of public information by reversing Rights of CSOs representatives, individuals and through their and access any source of information, including the Internet and the right to access information: the Rule Prohibiting Access to organisations to safely receive and impart information through ICT; if there are legal restrictions, these are exceptional, limited Information defines only a short list of information freely available.

Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 23 and based on international human rights law (1.2.3.L1)  Access to Information defines only a short list of information freely any media 2) The legal framework prohibits unjustified monitoring of available. Legislation (BCSDN): communication channels, including Internet and ICT, or collecting  It is evident that the usage of a significant number of laws is  Adoption of amendments of to the entity laws on Freedom of users’ information by the authorities (1.2.3.L2) contrary to the provisions of the LFAI. The Rulebook of the Court of Access to Information to harmonize them with the State Law in Practice BiH stipulates that only anonymous court verdicts should be terms of: time limits, of forms of communication with requesters 1) There are no cases in practice where restrictions are imposed on published. of information and of sanctions for the public body and the accessing any source of information, including the Internet or ICT.  According to the rules of the Communications Regulatory Agency responsible person in the event of non-compliance. (1.2.3.P1) and the Press Council in BiH, as well as to internal legal acts and  Harmonization of relevant laws with the Law on free access to 2) The Internet is widely accessible and affordable(1.2.3.P2) media editorial principles, the media should uphold the principles of information. 3) There is no practice or cases of unjustified monitoring by the equal access to media space for CSO activists.  Commencement of the campaign regarding changes to the authorities of communication channels, including the Internet or  There are no restrictions on legislative and technical grounds to Rulebook of the Court of BiH, and HJCP Decision on Abolition of ICT, or of collecting users’ information. (1.2.3.P3) access the internet and its various social networks. the Anonymity of Court Condemnations Provisions. 4) There are no cases of police harassment of members of social  There are clear legal principles by which channels of communication  Adoption of the Law on Transparency of Ownership in the Media network groups. (1.2.3.P4) (internet, phone service and the media) can be subject to special and Media Pluralism. surveillance by the police and security/intelligence agencies in BiH.  Amendments to the Law on Public RTV Stations that would Practice: provide information in minority languages.  Application of the Law on Free Access to Information does not have  Creation of CSO and media platforms for joint advocacy actions satisfactory public popularity, or promote the perception of and facilitated flow of information. information as a "public good".  Development of a civil dialogue between security agencies,  Pluralism of media exists in BiH; there are approximately 250 parliamentarians, academics, CSOs, and local and foreign experts traditional media outlets, hundreds of web portals, and in the fields of security policy and intelligence. approximately 2.18 million (57% of the total population) internet Legislation (possible other): users.  Media, social networks, the official web platforms of public  Same as BCSDN’s authorities and a number of CSOs are not fully protected from Practice (BCSDN): political and other influences, especially at the local level.  Establishment of a publicly accessible registry of RTV stations, as  Media and other public communication channels do not have well as print and online media, detailing their ownership profiled and continuous presentations and promotion of CSO structures and the names of responsible editors. results, nor do they have adequate public evaluation of their  Creation of special codes of conduct for information on actions. vulnerable and minority groups.

Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 24  There is a "closure" of media and other communication channels  Adoption of codes of ethics that would ensure the protection of towards minority and vulnerable groups, including CSOs journalists and editors from the influence of media owners. representing their interests.  Instigation of a study on the quality, diversity and availability of  The Internet is widely accessible, available on favourable terms to information of public importance for citizens, through official the whole country, and is regulated in a unique way, meaning that websites, internet platforms and social groups. data of public interest are not sufficiently available.  Establishment of cooperation with CSOs and the Parliament in  In the last two years, cases of social network monitoring, order to democratize and make public and more efficient the interrogation of CSO activists, tapping of phone lines, and work of the commission for supervising security agencies, police monitoring of the activities and correspondence of online social and public authorities. groups were recorded.  Affordability analysis of the internet and other channels of  Supervision of security agencies is performed within the Parliament communication for the rural population, poorer sectors of the by the Joint Security and Intelligence Committee on Supervision of population, and vulnerable and minority groups the work of Intelligence and Security Agency of BiH.  Development of a methodology for the monitoring and public  CSO activists and journalists expressed distrust towards public reporting of cases of illegal treatment by security agencies authorities and security agencies, because of their surveillance of towards CSOs, media and citizens. social networks and incidences of phone tapping, reported by the  Organization of independent investigations into cases of media as well as the legality of such actions. communications monitoring via internet, phones and the media, and possible violations of the right to freedom of expression and movement for CSOs and the media.  Development of a special program to protect CSO activists and journalists from groundless interference by police and law enforcement agencies during the course of their work. Practice (possible other):  Same as BCSDN’s 1.1.b. Progress with the adoption and implementation of relevant legislation Progress Will be monitored as of this baseline in accordance to the adopted recommendations 1.2. The policies and legal environment stimulate and facilitate volunteering and employment in CSOs

1.2.a. Number of employees in CSO (permanent and part-time)

 There is a lack of regular statistics maintenance (by entity Legislation (BCSDN): employment institutes) regarding the number of non-profit sector  Request the introduction of CSOs as a special category by employees. The baseline researchs did not provide available data on competent institutes for statistics, which would regularly collect the total number of CSO employees. data on employee numbers and salary rates in CSOs.  Entity Employment Services do not keep records on numbers of CSO Legislation (possible other): employees. This information can be obtained from the entity Tax  Same as BCSDN’s Administration Offices, but is not free of charge. For illustration Practice (BCSDN): purposes, according to information obtained from the RS Tax N/A Administration Office,3 380 persons were employed within 214 Practice (possible other): membership-based organizations. N/A  30% of CSOs stated that they do not have employees, 7% have one employee, 31% from 2-5 employees, and 32% over 6 employees  Out of total number of employees, 2.7% work full time, and 3.9% work part-time4

1.2.b. Number of volunteers in CSOs per type of CSO / sector

3 This information was obtained in February 2014, via e-mail; the request was submitted in November 2013. 4 Baseline Survey, Ipsos, April 2014 Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 25  No official data available

 32% of CSOs believe that up to 10% of organisation engaged volunteers, 11% believe that 11-20% of CSOs engage volunteers, 36% believe that 21-50% CSOs engage volunteers, and 22% of CSOs believe that over 50% of CSOs engage volunteers  87% CSOs stated that they have engaged, 13% stated that have not engaged volunteers in 2013  16% of the organisation had 1-5 volunteers, 56% of CSOs over 15 volunteers, and 28% between 6-15 volunteers in 2013  36% of CSOs paid pecuniary compensations to the engaged volunteers in the amount of their costs, and 44% did not pay any pecuniary costs  47% of CSOs stated that they did not conclude any volunteering contract with volunteers, 11% stated that they have concluded with up to 3 volunteers, 12% if CSOs concluded volunteering contract with 4-10 volunteers, and 18% with more than 10 volunteers  54% of CSOs did not conclude any other contract with volunteers5 1.2.c. Quality of legislative framework Equality of treatment of CSOs’ employees in comparison with other Equality of treatment of CSOs’ employees in comparison with other Equality of treatment of CSOs’ employees in comparison with employees employees other employees Legislation: Legislation: Legislation (BCSDN): 1) CSOs are treated in an equal manner to other employers by  CSOs are treated the same way as other employers according to  N/A law and policies. (2.3.1.L1) laws and bylaws. Legislation (possible other): Practice:  Labor laws of RS, FBiH and BD do not contain specific provisions in  Look for the possibilities for more flexibilities in 2) If there are state incentive programs for employment, CSOs are respect to CSOs. In addition, the laws on associations and employment arrangements in CSOs treated like all other sectors. foundations do not contain any specific provisions related to the 3) There are regular statistics on the number of employees in the employment of individuals in CSOs, specific procedures for Practice (BCSDN): non-profit sector. employment, nor specific rights for CSO workers.6  Increase participation of CSOs in incentive programs, as well as Practice: the use of CSOs and their networks as resources for the  There are no employment incentives related to CSOs specifically. promotion of various types of employment incentives.  The majority of CSOs consider that they don't have equal treatment  Request the introduction of CSOs as a special category in those

5 Ibid 4 6 Associations of employers and unions are regulated by special provisions. Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 26 to that of other employers generally, and only one-third of them institutes for statistics which regularly collect data on the consider they have equal treatment in receiving incentives. number of CSO employees and their salaries.  Based on analysis of current incentives, it was concluded that CSOs Practice (possible other): did not appear in the majority of them. 7  Same as BCSDN’s

Enabling volunteering policies and laws Enabling volunteering policies and laws Enabling volunteering policies and laws Legislation: Legislation: Legislation (BCSDN) 4) Legislation stimulates volunteering and incorporates best  The RS Law on Volunteering was passed in 2008, and the FBiH Law  Improvement of the implementation of existing laws on regulatory practices, while at the same time allowing for on Volunteering in 2011. There are no legal provisions for volunteering by institutions and CSOs. spontaneous volunteering practices. (2.3.2.L1) volunteering in BD.  Passing of the Law on Volunteering in BD. 5) There are incentives and state supported programs for the  There is as yet no legal framework defining the respective rights and  Coordination of encouragement of volunteering with existing development and promotion of volunteering. (2.3.2.L2) responsibilities of volunteer and volunteer-involving organisations legislation, and promotion of good volunteering practice by 6) There are clearly defined contractual relationships and at the state level.8 awarding the best volunteers and volunteering organizers at protections covering organized volunteering. (2.3.2.L3)  Laws regulate: basic terms related to volunteering; principles of local, cantonal and entity levels. Practice (15) volunteering; contracts; rights and obligations of volunteers and  Establishment of simple local and regional mechanisms for use 1) Incentives and programs are transparent and easily available to organizers of volunteer work; and overseeing applications. by CSOs when defining contractual relationships with, and CSOs and the policy/strategic document/ law is fully implemented, However, laws on volunteering are still largely unknown to CSOs, protection of, their volunteers. monitored and evaluated periodically in a participatory manner. who do not see their significance due to insufficient implementation Legislation (possible other): 2) Administrative procedures for organizers of volunteer activities or on the ground.  Seek for development of Volunteering astrategy(ies) volunteers are not complicated and are without any unnecessary  In order to prevent volunteer abuse, profitable companies can no costs. longer offer volunteer programmes.9 3) Volunteering can take place in any form; there are no cases of  The term “volunteer-intern” exists in different labor laws, and Practice (BCSDN): complaints of restrictions on volunteering. enables the creation of unpaid internships.  Increasing of activities related to the promotion of 4)  Encouragement is mainly provided at a local level, although RS has encouragement, and provision of more effective and clear entity mechanisms for giving incentives for volunteering. criteria in selecting participants.  There are clearly defined volunteering contractual relationships in  Provision of more extensive education to volunteering RS and FBiH, but not in BD. organizers, and promotion of various possibilities in Practice: volunteering engagements. Increasing of activities related to  CSOs are almost unanimous in their assessment that the situation is the promotion of encouragement, and provision of more poor regarding transparency in encouragement of volunteers. effective and clear criteria in selecting participants.  Many of the CSOs questioned were confused by administrative  Provision of continuous education of all volunteering organizers procedures related to volunteering. Only 45% of CSOs familiar with (not only CSOs) regarding the use of current legally defined the procedures claim that they are not complicated. contractual relations for the promotion of volunteering

7 The survey was conducted in October 2013 by the Youth Communication Center from Banja Luka, and included 47 CSOs. 8 Ibid 1, pg. 3 9 Ibid 1 pg. 14 Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 27  CSOs questioned were confused by the topic of restrictions in activities. volunteering. Many of them were not familiar with any complaints Practice (possible other): filed in that regard.  Same as BCSDN’s

1.3. National and/or local authorities have enabling policies and rules for grass-roots organisations* and/or civic initiatives.

*A grass-roots organisation is a self-organised group of individuals pursuing common interests through a volunteer-based, non-profit organisation. Grassroots organisations usually have a low degree of formality but a broader purpose than issue-based self-help groups, community-based organisations or neighbourhood-associations.

1.3.a. Quality of the enabling environment for grass-roots organisations and/or civic initiatives

Registration, informal vs. formal Registration, informal vs. formal Registration, informal vs. formal Legislation: Legislation: Legislation (BCSDN): 1) Registration is not mandatory, and in cases when organizations  Registration is voluntary and clearly governed by state, entity,  Formation of a unique CSO registry, to provide information on decide to register, the registration rules are clearly prescribed and cantonal and BD laws and regulations. There is no single registry for CSOs in BiH, and which would enable access to the exact allow for easy, timely and inexpensive registration and appeal CSOs in BiH; CSOs are registered at an administrative level, number and structure of CSOs. process. (1.1.1.L3) according to the scope of their activities as provided by the relevant  Unification of registration procedures and related expenses at Practice: statutes. Fees for registration differ between administrative levels. all levels of government for all CSOs in BiH. 1) Every individual or legal entity in practice can form associations, Practice: Legislation (possible other): foundations or other non-profit, non-governmental organizations  In some cases the registration procedure for associations/umbrella  Seek for ensuring strateforward registration procedure of offline or online. (1.1.1.P1) associations was extremely prolonged, and citizens continued with CSOs, whith clear instructionon about administrative 2) Individuals and legal entities are not sanctioned for not-registering their activities as informal associations. The option of online formality and accomyning documentation and their organizations. (1.1.1.P2) registration does not exist at any level. invormation required when registering CSO. 3) Registration is truly accessible within legally prescribed deadlines;  Registration of CSOs is voluntary. Upon registration, the association Practice (BCSDN): authorities decide on cases in non-subjective and apolitical or foundation acquires the status of legal entity.  Establishment of the option of online registration at all manner. (1.1.1.P3)  In most cases, CSOs find registration simple, and the process is administrative levels in BiH. completed within the prescribed 30 days. A significant number of  Conducting of analysis of the registration process in all relevant CSOs still face different restrictions during the registration process ministries, with emphasis on its problems. (additional requirements, name changes, different interpretations  Lowering of registration costs. of the law). The majority of CSOs find registration expensive, Practice (possible other): Additional costs for registering can vary significantly.  Look for streamlining procedures so the problems organisations face during the registration are left to the

Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 28 minimum.  Closer monitoring if organisations can operate without formal registration.

Spontaneity Spontaneity Spontaneity Legislation Legislation: Legislation: 1) The laws recognize and do not restrict spontaneous, simultaneous  Peaceful organized assemblies are regulated by cantonal laws on  Carrying out of analysis and amendments of existing laws on and counter-assemblies. (1.2.1.L2) public assembly in the FBiH, and by the RS Law on Public Assembly. public assembly, taking into account the recommendations of 2) The exercise of the right is not subject to prior authorization by the These laws recognize peaceful and organized assemblies, but the Venice Commission, and democratic standards and authorities, but at the most to a prior notification procedure, contain a broad range of restrictions regarding the public spaces principles regulating and actualizing the objectives of the right which is not burdensome. (1.2.1.L3) citizens can use to exercise their rights in this regard. to peaceful assembly and protests. 3) The legal framework provides the possibility to communicate via  Peaceful assembly may be prohibited pursuant to these laws.  Abolition of municipal fees for the use of public spaces for the and access any source of information, including the Internet and  Freedom of expression and obtaining of information, as well as non-economic activities of CSOs in RS. ICT; if there are legal restrictions, these are exceptional, limited access to all channels of communication, are guaranteed by the  Adoption of amendments of to the entity laws on Freedom of and based on international human rights law. (1.2.3.L1) national judicial system and the Law on Communications. Access to Information to harmonize them with the State Law in Practice:  Proposed amendments to the Law on Free Access to Information terms of: time limits, of forms of communication with 1) There are no cases of police harassment of members of social (LFAI) reduce the right to access of public information by reversing requesters of information and of sanctions for the public body network groups. (1.2.3.P4) the right to access information: the Rule Prohibiting Access to and the responsible person in the event of non-compliance. Information defines only a short list of information freely available.  Harmonization of relevant laws with the Law on free access to  It is evident that the usage of a significant number of laws is information. contrary to the provisions of the LFAI. The Rulebook of the Court of  Commencement of the campaign regarding changes to the BiH stipulates that only anonymous court verdicts should be Rulebook of the Court of BiH, and HJCP Decision on Abolition of published. the Anonymity of Court Condemnations Provisions.  According to the rules of the Communications Regulatory Agency  Adoption of the Law on Transparency of Ownership in the and the Press Council in BiH, as well as to internal legal acts and Media and Media Pluralism. media editorial principles, the media should uphold the principles of  Amendments to the Law on Public RTV Stations that would equal access to media space for CSO activists. provide information in minority languages.  There are no restrictions on legislative and technical grounds to  Creation of CSO and media platforms for joint advocacy actions access the internet and its various social networks. and facilitated flow of information. Practice  Development of a civil dialogue between security agencies,  In the last two years, cases of social network monitoring, parliamentarians, academics, CSOs, and local and foreign interrogation of CSO activists, tapping of phone lines, and experts in the fields of security policy and intelligence. monitoring of the activities and correspondence of online social Legislation (possible other): groups were recorded.  Same as BCSDN’s  CSO activists and journalists expressed distrust towards public Practice (BCSDN): authorities and security agencies, because of their surveillance of  Development of a methodology for the monitoring and public

Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 29 social networks and incidences of phone tapping, reported by the reporting of cases of illegal treatment by security agencies media as well as the legality of such actions. towards CSOs, media and citizens.  Organization of independent investigations into cases of communications monitoring via internet, phones and the media, and possible violations of the right to freedom of expression and movement for CSOs and the media.  Development of a special program to protect CSO activists and journalists from groundless interference by police and law enforcement agencies during the course of their work. Practice (possible other):  Same as BCSDN’s 4. An enabling financial 2.1. Easy-to-meet financial rules for CSO, which are proportionate to their turn-over and non-commercial activities environment which supports sustainability 2.1.a. CSOs' perception of the ease and effectiveness of financial rules and reporting requirements (disaggregated by type / size of CSO) of CSOs. 1)  14% of CSOs assessed that prescribed financial rule, obligations of bookkeeping and accounting, referring to their organisations are not clear and understandable, while for 83% were clear and understandable  For 27% of CSOs it is not simple to implement prescribed financial rule, obligations of bookkeeping and accounting, referring to their organisations are not clear and understandable, while for 71% is simple to implement10 2.1.b. Quality assessment of financial rules (with the focus on built-in mechanisms that financial rules and obligations change as the turn-over and non-commercial activities change). Financial reporting Financial reporting Financial reporting Legislation: Legislation: Legislation (BCSDN): 1) Financial reporting (including money laundering regulations) and  Registered CSO are obliged to comply with entity laws and  N/A accounting rules take into account the specific nature of the CSOs regulations on accounting, as prescribed by International Legislation (possible other): and are proportionate to the size of the organization and its Accounting Standards, and are required to send yearly financial  Look for simplification of accounting standards for CSOs. type/scope of activities. (1.1.2.L3) reports in standardized forms to the entity level Agencies for Practice (BCSDN): Practice: Finance and Informatics Services. These forms vary between  N/A 1) There are no practices of invasive oversight which impose entities, as to which aspects of the specific nature of CSOs are taken Practice (possible other): burdensome reporting requirements. (1.1.2.P2) into consideration. Most CSOs are categorized as small legal  Look for simplification of requirements for financial entities, and thus are not subject to the statutory audit of financial reporting. statements. Practice:  More than half of CSOs consider financial reporting requirements not in line with the specific nature of CSOs

10 Ibid 4 Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 30  Few cases were reported when tax administration required non- financial documents and evidence

Economic activities Economic activities Legislation: Legislation: Economic activities 1) Legislation allows CSOs to engage in economic activities. (1.1.3.L1)  CSOs in BiH have the option to acquire income through economic Legislation (BCSDN): 2) CSOs are allowed to receive foreign funding. (1.1.3.L2) activities whose purpose is the pursuit of its stated goals. In FBiH,  Unification of legislation between the entities of RS and FBiH, as 3) CSO are allowed to receive funding from individuals, corporations unlike in RS, this income is not subject to taxation. the issue of direct taxation (relating to income, profit and and other sources(1.1.3.L3)  An association and a foundation may undertake economic activities property) is specified by the Constitution of BiH as a Practice: which are not directly related to the achievement of its goals only competence of the entities. 1) Legislation on CSOs engaging in economic activities is implemented by establishing a separate commercial legal entity; in such a case, Legislation (possible other): and is not burdensome for CSOs. (1.1.3.P1) the total profit from unrelated activities must not exceed one third  Same as BCSDN’s 2) There are no restrictions (e.g. administrative or financial burden, of the organisations total annual budget, or 10,000 BAM (approx. Practice (BCSDN): preapprovals, or channeling such funds via specific bodies) on CSOs 5,000 EUR), whichever amount is higher. In addition, profit  N/A to receive foreign funding. (1.1.3.P2) generated from unrelated economic activities can only be used for Practice (possible other): 3) Receipt of funding from individuals, corporations and other furthering the stated purpose of the organisation.  Closer monitoring fof the practice for individual and sources is easy, effective and without any unnecessary cost or  CSOs can be financed by individuals, corporations and other corporate giving for private and ligale entities form BiH. administrative burden. (1.1.3.P3) sources, which may be based outside BiH.  Closer monitoring of establishment of endowements. 4) Endowments are established without major procedural difficulties  CSOs can be financed by individuals, corporations and other and operate freely, without administrative burden or high financial sources, which may be based outside BiH. cost (2.1.1.P4) Practice:  The funding of CSOs is conducted in accordance with state, entity and cantonal legislation.  There are no restrictions on CSOs regarding funding they may receive from outside BiH. 2.2. Donations are stimulated with adequate legislation and regulations

2.2.a. Quality and applicability/practice of the legal framework for individual and corporate giving

Incentives for individual and corporate giving Incentives for individual and corporate giving Incentives for individual and corporate giving Legislation: Legislation: Legislation (BCSDN): 1) The law provides tax deductions for individual and corporate  Entity laws on corporate income tax provide for monetary  Harmonization of the treatment of tax deductions for donations donations to CSOs (2.1.2.L1) donations or donations in kind, to the amount of 3% of total to CSOs from physical persons who gain income from 2) There are clear requirements/conditions for receiving deductible income. independent economic activities, and physical persons who gain donations and these include a wide range of publicly beneficial  The Law on Corporate Income Tax of Physical Entities provides for income from non-independent economic activities (Law on activities. (2.1.2.L2) tax exemption on donations of up to 0.5% in the FBiH and 2% in RS. Income Tax of RS, FBiH, BD). Practice:  The Law on Property Tax in the Sarajevo Canton provides exemption  Amendment of entity laws on profit and income tax as follows: 1) There is a functional procedure in place to claim tax deductions for for traffic of immovable properties and their ownership only to o provide a more extensive list of areas (activities) of

Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 31 individual and corporate donations. (2.1.2.P1) foundations, religious foundations and pious endowments, while general interest; 2) CSOs working in the main areas of public interest, including human other CSOs are not tax exempt for property ownership or traffic of o make specific criteria for activities with general purposes; rights and watchdog organizations, effectively enjoy tax deductible immovable. o regulate the issue of institutional grants; donations. (2.1.2.P3)  The Law does not explicitly specify the timeframe in which a o regulate the issue of donation transfers; donation must be used, nor does it provide a percentage of the o regulate the issue of admissible administrative expenses; donation that may be used to cover administrative expenses.  In RS, coordinate the activity list with the Law on Corporate  Pursuant to the Law on Corporate Income Tax of Legal Entities, and Income Tax and the Law on Associations and Foundations, to the Law on Corporate Income Tax of Physical Entities, in both RS expand the narrow definition of the current solution; and FBiH activities such as strengthening of democracy, rule of law, o ensure that tax exemptions are provided for humanitarian, fighting corruption, sustainable development, protection of nature cultural and educational organizations rather than their etc. are not recognized as activities of general interest. Thus, activities, as the relevant regulations do not currently donations for these purposes do not count as tax-admissible afford CSOs specific statutory legal treatment, despite the expenditure. fact that associations, foundations and public institutions Practice: conduct these activities.  Provided companies are within the distribution donation margin of o regulate the issue of institutional grants for CSOs, and up to 3% of total annual income, and within the categorization their admissible administrative expenses; specified in the Law donation expenditure is not subject to  Legislation (possible other): taxation. VAT is paid on donations in the form of goods/products.  Increase of tax exemption ceiling in order to stimulate  CSOs complain that tax exemptions are too low to stimulate a culture of giving. culture of giving in BiH, and also that, as far as individual giving is Practice (BCSDN): concerned, as the scheme is only available to individuals who  N/A submit annual tax returns (in effect the self-employed), it is far too Practice (possible other): 11 restricted in scope to generate significant revenues for CSOs.  Promote individual and corporate giving.  If an economic body wishes to donate funds to a CSO acting in the general good, it is almost certain that this body will be a circle of organizations designed to fall into a certain category of the Law in which donation expenses can be calculated into the tax base; specifically, the donation would be recognized as expenditure. 2.3. Financial (e.g. tax or in-kind) benefits are available 2.3.a. Quality of the system of tax benefits for the CSOs’ operational and economic activities

Tax benefits for CSOs Tax benefits for CSOs Tax benefits for CSOs Legislation: Legislation: Legislation (BCSDN): 1) The law provides tax free treatment for all grants and donations  In FBiH, associations and foundations are exempted by law from the  Harmonize the tax treatment of CSOs in both BiH entities (FBiH supporting non-for-profit activity of CSOs. (2.1.1.L1) payment of profit and income tax, while in RS this exemption and RS). 2) The law provides tax benefits for economic activities of CSOs. applies only to public institutions and humanitarian organizations.  Entity laws should provide for a wider definition of the CSO (2.1.1.L2)  Monetary donations are not directly taxable, either for the donor or circle concerning tax exemption, as in RS only humanitarian 3) The law provides tax benefits for passive investments of CSOs. receiver (CSO). CSOs are not subject to taxation. Gifts from physical and legal

11 Ibid 1, pg. 15 Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 32 (2.1.1.L3)  Gifts and donations made in the form of goods and/or services, and entities (taxpayers) are currently restricted by a narrow 4) The law allows the establishment of and provides tax benefits for given to CSOs by economic entities, are subject to taxation of categorization of CSOs to which funds may be donated, and endowments. (2.1.1.L4) donors and donations only if the donor is registered in the VAT based on which tax may be exempted. Practice: system.  Modification of the law so as not to bind foundations to have 1) There is no direct or indirect (hidden) tax on grants reported  Monetary donations from physical entities, as well as monetary an initial, basic property. (2.1.1.P1) donations and gifts of goods and services given to CSOs by different  Reduction and harmonization of the fee for registration and re- 2) Tax benefits for economic activities of CSOs are effective and institutions are not subject to taxation. registration. support the operation of CSOs (2.1.1.P2)  Unlike in RS, income from membership fees is not subject to Legislation (possible other): 3) Passive investments are utilized by CSOs and no sanctions are taxation in FBiH.  Promote tax incentives for CSOs applied in doing so. (2.1.1.P3)  CSOs are fully equal with the profit sector. 4) Endowments are established without major procedural difficulties  Laws on associations and foundations on state and entity level (BiH and operate freely, without administrative burden nor high and FBiH), provide for a minimum means test to establish a financial cost (2.1.1.P4) foundation, to the amount of 2,000 BAM (approx EUR 1,000). RS law does not deem a means test necessary for the establishment of a Practice (BCSDN): foundation.  Initiation of an extensive debate regarding the differences in Practice: the nature of economically similar activities in the non-profit  Pursuant to the FBiH Law on Corporate Income Tax, CSOs do not sector, and the nature of the profit sector. pay tax on income realized through similar economic activities,  Maintaining of statistics about a number of employees in the while in RS similar economic activities cannot be commercial in non-profitable sector, and the contribution of the non- nature. Only humanitarian institutions are exempted. profitable sector to the total BDP.  In general, CSOs are fully equal with the profit sector regarding  Specification of particular tax reliefs – which will facilitate the performance of economic activities. activities of the CSO sector without disturbing market competition – and an efficient checking system by authorized bodies. Facilitate the tax liability on donations and grants from foreign or domestic natural or legal persons. Practice (possible other):  Same as BCSDN’s 2.4. Government support to CSOs is available and provided in a transparent, accountable, fair and non-discriminatory manner

2.4.a. Ratio of amount sought vs. amount approved/disbursed annually through state funding to CSOs. (this proves availability of funds)

 In terms of domestic institutions, financial support is provided by all levels of authorities, municipal, cantonal (in FBiH), entity and state level. This support has always been significant considering that funds allocated to CSOs have always amounted to some 0.5 -0.6 % of country GDP, in line with trends in other countries in the region.12  The total of 100,006,470.48 BAM allocated for the non- governmental sector in 2012 was divided as follows: o 675,000.00 BAM by BiH at state level o 57,602,954.51 BAM by FBiH

12 Ibid 1, pg. 16 Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 33 o 30,538,566.15 BAM by RS o 11,189,949.15 BAM on BD level.  It is also important to note, that in accordance with entity laws on lotteries, 50% of revenue generated from fees paid by lottery organizers is set aside for funding/co-funding CSOs projects and programs. In FBiH, it is a budgetary revenue paid by the BiH Lottery as a public company, while in RS, the RS Lottery and organizers of other games of chance contribute to funds for these purposes.  In 2012, a total of 47.6% of institutions participated in the co- funding of CSO projects on the basis of pooled funds, in partnership with other BiH government institutions or foreign partners. The practice of pooling funds is most common at the municipal level (62.9% of total allocated funds), followed by state institutions (50%), then cantonal institutions (25%) and finally, entity-level institutions, at 22.6%. 2.4.b. Quality of state funding frameworks for civil society organisations (focusing on procedural document)

Availability of public funding for institutional development of CSOs, Availability of public funding for institutional development of CSOs, Availability of public funding for institutional development of project support and co-financing of EU and other grants project support and co-financing of EU and other grants CSOs, project support and co-financing of EU and other grants Legislation Legislation: Legislation (BCSDN): 1) There is a law or national policy (document) that regulates state  Strategies exist in several areas, including commitment of state  Establishment of a unique system of gathering and publishing support for institutional development for CSOs, project support policy towards the institutional development and support of CSOs, all relevant project data, EU-supported projects, and publicly and co-financing of EU funded projects. (2.2.1.L1) and co-funding of projects that contribute to this development. allocated funds (by requesting them from a state body or by 2) There is a national level mechanism for distribution of public funds  There is no unified mechanism for allocation of public funds to establishing a unique web page). to CSOs. (2.2.1.L2) CSOs. Mechanisms/manners of fund allocation depend on the level  Introduction of the practice of drafting framework plans related 3) Public funds for CSOs are clearly planned within the state budget. of authority, and on the institution allocating funds, and are based to necessary budget funds when passing strategies or laws with (2.2.1.L3) on the publishing of public calls for funding and regular budget long term applications. 4) There are clear procedures for CSO participation in all phases of allocations to CSOs.  Enablement of greater participation of CSOs, not only in fund the public funding cycle(2.2.1.L4)  Public funds for CSO are planned within the budget at different allocations but also in planning budgetary funds for this Practice: authority levels. purpose. 1) Available public funding responds to the needs of the CSO sector.  Procedures vary with the level of authority, and the institution  Establishment of a unified and functional mechanism for the (2.2.1.P1) allocating the funds and publishing public calls for funding. Some of allocation of funds to CSOs in BiH on state or entity levels. 2) There are government bodies with a clear mandate for those institutions have clear and developed procedures while some  Establishment of clear procedures for participation of CSOs in distribution and/or monitoring of the distribution of state funding. do not. the public funding cycle at all authority levels. (2.2.1.P2) Practice: Legislation (possible other): 3) Funding is predictable, not cut drastically from one year to  Available funds reflect the needs of CSOs by their size and amounts  Same as BCSDN’s another; and the amount in the budget for CSOs is easy to (e.g. for 2012 the amount of 100,006 470.48 BAM was allocated to Practice (BCSDN): identify. (2.2.1.P3) NGOs), but they are not adequate for CSO needs in their areas of  Enhancement of fund allocation to CSOs based on their 4) CSO participation in the public funding cycle is transparent and activity, priority issues and problems of civil society and society in respective areas of activity, and priority issues of civil society meaningful. (2.2.1.P4) general. The majority of funds for CSOsare allocated to sports and society in general. The difference should be distinguished organizations (38.9%)13 associations for the protection of veterans when allocating to sports organizations and other CSOs.

13 BiH ministries allocate 25% of their funding for the non-governmental sector to sports organizations and 75% to other types of CSOs/NGOs (excluding associations for veterans and the disabled, and those focusing on social services/care. Within RS and FBiH institutions, the lowest share of total funding is allocated to CSOs/NGOs for the protection of veterans, and for the disabled and social services/care respectively. The greatest share goes to sports organizations. Both FBiH and RS institutions allocate around 30% of their funding to other types of CSOs/NGOs, while in BD the allocation is 76.3%. Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 34 and the disabled (15.2%); CSOs for social services/social care  Allocation of funds should be based on the assessment of needs (12.2%); and other types of CSOs (34.4%)14. in different areas and sectors.  In accordance with entity laws on lottery and games of chance,  Assessment of needs should be made prior to budget planning, 50% of revenue generated from fees paid by lottery organizers is set publishing of calls for public funding and allocation of funds. aside for funding/co-funding CSOs projects and programs.  Definition of a framework for monitoring and evaluation of  There are no state bodies with a clear mandate for allocation and/or fund allocation at all levels of government. monitoring of state funds.  Establishment of an organ/body at state or entity level,  Monitoring of fund allocation and spending is the responsibility of responsible for the allocation and monitoring of state funds the institutions allocating the funds, and is dependent on these  The competent body should receive narrative and financial institutions as well as on the reports of CSOs using the funds. reports from the CSO regarding spending, within pre-  Funding is mainly predictable. determined deadlines. Depending on the amount of the  Reduced allocations to the civil sector and NGOs have been visible allocation, it will also receive independent audit reports. in the last five years. Funds allocated to CSOs were: 107 219 316.05  Maintaining of continuous funding to CSOs/NGOs BAM in 2007; 118 033 390.43 BAM in 2008; 114 078 193.73 BAM in  An increase to the level of allocation in accordance with 2010; and 100 006 470.48 BAM in 2012. increase of (administrative/operative) expenditures incurred by  The sums allocated for CSOs can be identified in the budget. CSOs/NGOs.  Participation of CSOs in the public funding cycle is transparent, in  An increase to the level of availability of information regarding the way that calls for allocation of funds are mainly public and public calls for allocation of funds to be more accessible to as available to all CSOs, and that names of CSOs receiving financial many CSOs and potential applicants as possible. support are by and large public.  Provision of access and feedback regarding actual reasons for  However, there is no access to the process of project proposal granting or rejecting particular project proposals to interested selection, and specific reasons and explanations as to why certain CSOs. projects have been selected or rejected. For this reason, the process  Include CSO representatives from competent areas in the of project proposal selection, and decision-making regarding process of selecting project proposals for the allocation of state allocation of funds to CSOs is not open to participation. funds. Practice (possible other):  Same as BCSDN’s

Procedures and transparency of distribution of public funding Procedures and transparency of distribution of public funding Procedures and transparency of distribution of public funding Legislation: Legislation (BCSDN): Legislation:  The public funds allocation procedure is transparent to the extent  In procedures for emergency allocations, make criteria for 1) The procedure for distribution of public funds is transparent and that a specific part of funding is allocated through public calls at all allocations, conditions and manner of applying accessible and legally binding. (2.2.2.L1) authority levels. transparent. 2) The criteria for selection are clear and published in advance.  The criteria published in public calls are to a large extent clear, and  Make all procedures, criteria and deadlines publicly available (2.2.2.L2) are published on time. and available online. 3) There are clear procedures addressing issues of conflict of interest  The laws on conflicts of interest in institutions (BiH, FBiH, RS)  In procedures for emergency allocations, make criteria for in decision-making. (2.2.2.L3) regulate issues of conflict of interest in decision-making. allocations, conditions and manner of applying accessible and Practice:  Following the procedure for distribution of public funds is not legally transparent. 1) Information relating to the procedures for funding and binding (Only Code for Good Practices for Funding is prescribed).  information on funded projects is publicly available. (2.2.2.P1) Advancement of accuracy of criteria for funds allocation. Practice: 2) State bodies follow the procedure and apply it in a harmonized  Extension of application deadlines, specifically the period  Information related to funding procedures is made public and way. (2.2.2.P2) between the call publication and the proposal submission limited to information published in the public call. There have been 3) The application requirements are not too burdensome for CSOs. deadline.

14 Heads-or-Tails: Government Sector Allocations for the Non-Governmental Sector in BiH for 2012, FSI in BiH and CSPC, Sarajevo, February 2013,p.12. Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 35 (2.2.3.P3) situations where documents the applicant must provide in the  Make all procedures, criteria and deadlines publicly available 4) Decisions on tenders are considered fair and conflict of interest application for allocation of funds are not accurately explained, and and available online. situations are declared in advance (2.2.3.P4) civil servants are not able to provide a precise additional  Harmonize the laws on conflict of interest, with increase of the explanation. sanctions and supervision of the parliamentary assemblies on  Information related to the results of public calls is generally its implementation. available to the public.  Regarding public calls procedures, define provisions related to  Information related to implementation of the project on the conflict of interest and monitoring procedures. ground, project results and influences is generally inaccessible.  Amendment of bylaws to introduce clear procedures related to  There is no coordinated manner of procedure monitoring; it varies preventing conflict of interest when passing decisions on by institution and level of authority. allocation of public funds at all authority levels in all  Conditions are generally not difficult, although this depends on the institutions, and ensuring no conflict of interest on behalf of the capacities of individual CSOs. Selection Committee.  It is considered that a large number of decisions related to public Legislation (possible other): calls are not based on transparent and fair treatment, but rather on  Same as BCSDN’s personal relations and acquaintances. Practice (BCSDN):  Situations related to conflict of interest are not announced prior to  Enablement of access to every phase of the project the procedure. implementation, including realized results, changes and improvements to the local community or targeted project group, and the solving of certain issues focused on by the project.  Introduction of a practice to regularly publish a list of organizations and projects allocated public funds on a web page or similar.  Strengthening and promotion of transparency of decision- making regarding the allocation of public funds.  Inclusion of CSO representatives in the process of public fund allocation.  Allowing of CSOs to have insight into the reasons and criteria based on which some project proposals are granted and some rejected.  Introduction and application of a coordinated system for monitoring the CSO project funding procedure, and for notifying all state institutions allocating funds to CSOs about these projects.  Invest efforts in strengthening CSO capacities for applying to public calls for allocation of funds through training sessions and the “CSO Info Day”.  Instruction of the competent civil servants to provide clear and accurate additional information, guidelines and explanations to potential applicants  Introduction of a section for frequently asked questions on the web page of the institution publishing public calls, through which CSOs can ask questions and request additional explanations regarding the public call.

Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 36 Practice (possible other):  Same as BCSDN’s System for accountability, monitoring and evaluation of public System for accountability, monitoring and evaluation of public funding funding System for accountability, monitoring and evaluation of public Legislation: Legislation: funding 1) The procedure for distribution of public funds prescribes clear  Procedures for allocation of public funds do not generally provide Legislation (BCSDN): measures for accountability, monitoring and evaluation. (2.2.3.L1) clear measures for accountability, monitoring and evaluation.  Establish clear, comprehensive and unique measures for 2) There are prescribed sanctions for CSOs that misuse funds which  The most clearly provided measures are those related to accountability, monitoring and evaluation of public fund are proportional to the violation of procedure. (2.2.3.L2) monitoring, and comprise the submission of financial and/or allocations. narrative CSO reports to institutions allocating the relevant funds  Introduce mandatory narrative and financial CSO reports, which Practice: Practice: will be submitted to competent institutions both halfway 1) Monitoring is carried out continuously and in accordance with  It is not known if monitoring is performed constantly and in through and at the end of project implementation. predetermined and objective indicators. (2.2.3.P1) accordance with previously defined objective and measurable  Introduce field visits of expert teams from the competent state 2) Regular evaluation of effects/impact of public funds is carried out indicators. institutions to CSOs, with an aim to monitoring the by state bodies and is publicly available. (2.2.3.P2)  Monitoring is mainly performed through submission of CSO implementation of the project on the ground. narratives and/or financial reports to the institutions allocating the  Establish criteria for evaluation of the effects of the project, and funds. coordination of realized and planned results.  It is not known if state bodies perform evaluation of public fund  Introduce clear sanctions for abuse of state funds. effects/influences Legislation (possible other):  Information on effects/influences is not made public  Same as BCSDN Practice (BCSDN):  Establishment of clear, objective and measurable indicators related to project implementation and realized results.  Provision of additional education of civil servants and all other parties involved in monitoring and evaluation.  Establishment of a system and criteria for regular evaluation of the effects and influences of the funds allocated to CSOs by state institutions.  Evaluation should be based on concrete, visible and measurable changes and improvements to the local community and wider society.  Make information related to public fund influences/effects accessible to the public. Practice (possible other):  Same as BCSDN’s

Availability of the state non-financial support Availability of the state non-financial support Legislation (BCSDN): Availability of the state non-financial support Legislation:  Through campaigns and requests, exertion of as much influence Legislation:  The law allows state authorities to grant CSOs non-financial support, as possible on state allocation of non-financial support, 1) Legislation allows state authorities to allocate non-financial such as state assets, the renting of space without financial specifically: free rental of premises; support services; and support, such as state property, renting space without financial compensation (to a certain limit), free training, consultation and cooperation with CSOs during program development drafting. compensation (time-bound), free training, consultations and other other resources.  Establishment of a system and clear procedures based on which resources, to CSOs. (2.2.4.L1)  There is favourable and preferential treatment of certain groups 2) The non-financial support is provided under clearly prescribed non-financial support will be allocated to CSOs in accordance

Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 37 processes, based on objective criteria and does not privilege any (e.g. veterans’ organizations, organizations of civilian victims of war) with the objective needs of CSOs and their final users. group. (2.2.4.L2) that make up a significant part of the voting body). Legislation (possible other): Practice: Practice:  Same as BCSDN 1) CSOs use non-financial state support(2.2.4.P1)  Generally, CSOs use non-financial state support at a local level. Practice (BCSDN): 2) CSOs are treated in an equal or more supportive manner as  Non-financial state support mainly comprises use of workspaces or  Increasing of non-financial support for CSOs through training compared to other actors when providing state non-financial premises for the organization of particular events. sessions, instructions, and study trips, especially the drafting of resources. (2.2.4.P2)  CSOs do not have equal treatment neither among themselves, nor project proposals and applications to European Commission 3) There are no cases of state authorities granting non-financial with public institutions, while receiving non-financial support. programs, primarily those requiring state and civil sector support only to CSOs which do not criticize its work; or of cases of  In the majority of cases, allocation of financial support is based on partnership. depriving critical CSOs of support; or otherwise discriminating personal connections and acquaintances.  Introduction of clear procedures and criteria for the allocation based on loyalty, political affiliation or other unlawful terms.  For that very reason, a large number of CSOs receive non-financial of non-financial support, based on which CSOs will receive (2.2.4.P3) support based on political affiliation and loyalty. equal treatment in this regard.  Introduction of controlling mechanisms to prevent allocation of non-financial support based on political and party membership CSOs’ engagement in different state services and equality of and/or loyalty. competition among all providers for state contracts  Ensuring that the allocation of non-financial support is based on Legislation: CSOs’ needs, specifically the needs of the targeted population, 1) Existing legislation allows CSOs to provide services in various and final users of CSO services. areas, such as education, healthcare, social services .(3.3.1.L1) Practice (possible other): 2) CSOs have no barriers to providing services that are not defined by  Same as BCSDN’s law (“additional” services). (3.3.1.L2) 3) Existing legislation does not add additional burdensome CSOs’ engagement in different state services and equality of CSOs’ engagement in different state services and equality of requirements on CSOs that do not exist for other service competition among all providers for state contracts competition among all providers for state contracts providers. .(3.3.1.L2) Legislation: Legislation (BCSDN):  BiH law allows CSOs to provide certain services, mainly in the area  Establishment of licenses with periodic duration, and Practice: of social services, but also in the areas of health and education. commitment to the fulfillment of quality standards. 1) CSOs are able to obtain contracts in competition with other  There are no obstacles for health and educational institutions that  Implementation of permanent control over organizations that providers and are engaged in various services (e.g., education, provide services related to their primary activities. provide education and health services. health, research, and training). (3.3.1.P1)  Services that fall outside CSOs’ registered activities, and whose main  Creation of the option for CSOs to take over provision of 2) CSOs are included in all stages of developing and providing objective is financial profit, can be provided only through a separate selected services that have previously been exclusively services (needs assessment, determining the services that best legal entity. regulated by government institutions or the private sector. address the needs, monitoring and evaluation). (3.3.1.P2)  The tender procedure is carried out in accordance with the Law on  Amendment to the legislation in order to standardize 3) When prior registration/licensing is required, the procedure for Public Procurement in BiH. administrative fees and achieve greater cooperation between obtaining that is not overly burdensome. (3.3.1.P3)  Operation of CSOs is equivalent to that of other legal entities. CSOs and authorities, in the fields of education and health. Practice:  Introduction of simpler procedures and shortening of deadlines  CSOs are able to obtain contracts in competition with others in for the registration of all legal service-providing entities. terms of necessary expertise and skills. However, provision of many  Introduction of simpler procedures and creation of a register services (education, health and social protection) is under state for legal entities, that would provide activities related to social jurisdiction, so CSOs providing these services appear to supplement entrepreneurship. the work of state institutions, and are usually engaged on a project Legislation (possible other): basis. CSOs generally only provide one part of services required by  Same as BCSDN’s projects. Practice (BCSDN):  CSOs are generally not included in needs assessments,  Conducting of a cost-benefit analysis regarding general determination of specific services, or monitoring and evaluation. provision of services (or of one type of service in a specific

Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 38  Registration/licensing procedures depend on the competent issuing sector) in order to obtain and compare data on the relative institution. quality of contributions of the government and CSOs in this  Established registration/licensing procedures are less complicated area. and shorter than procedures for those licenses and programs that  Recognizing of CSOs as organizations of public importance and competent institutions have not previously encountered. interest, and as equal partners to the state in terms of service provision.  Promotion of the capacities and capabilities of CSOs to provide services in sectors which are under state jurisdiction.  Enablement of CSO participation in the process of needs assessment, with regard to: expertise; experience in particular fields; and target groups who use the relevant services. Practice (possible other):  Same as BCSDN’s

Commitments of state to funding services and predictability and Commitments of state to funding services and predictability and long- long-term availability of the funding Commitments of state to funding services and predictability and long- term availability of the funding Legislation (BCSDN): term availability of the funding Legislation:  When adopting new laws and amendments to existing laws that Legislation:  State financing of services provided by CSOs is mainly based on the involve changes to the budget, a period of postponement 1) The budget provides funding for various types of services which allocation of funds through projects. should be introduced. During this time, the public can be could be provided by CSOs, including multi-year funding. (3.3.2.L1)  There are no known cases of multi-year funding. informed about and prepared for the implementation of the 2) There are no legal barriers to CSOs receiving public funding for the  There are no barriers preventing CSOs from receiving public funds. new law through awareness-raising campaigns. This delay provision of different services (either through procurement or  There are no data showing that CSOs can sign long-term contracts should also prevent budget reduction during the course of the through another contracting or grants mechanism). (3.3.2.L2) for the provision of services. financial year, which can jeopardize service quality. 3) CSOs can sign long-term contracts for provision of services  Contracts signed by CSOs are mainly short- or medium-term (six  Introduction of capabilities that will enable CSOs to obtain long- (3.3.2.L3) months to a year). term contracts for the provision of certain services, to be Practice:  The signing of long-term contracts is not possible in practice, as the extended on an annual basis after adoption of the state budget. 1) CSOs are recipients of funding for services. (3.3.2.P1) government’s budget allocation takes place on an annual basis. Legislation (possible other): 2) CSOs receive sufficient funding to cover the basic costs of the Practice:  Same as BCSDN’s services they are contracted to provide, including proportionate  CSOs generally receive funding for the provision of certain services Practice (BCSDN): institutional (overhead) costs. (3.3.2.P2) through projects, although they also receive part of their funds via  Introduction of, or increase to, regular budget allocations, to 3) There are no delays in payments and the funding is flexible with regular budget allocations. fund services provided by CSOs. the aim of providing the best quality of services. (3.3.2.P3)  CSOs do not receive sufficient funding from the state to cover their  Increasing or redistribution of budgetary allocations for CSOs basic service costs. State funding is most often combined with much that provide certain services in order to cover a larger higher funding from foreign donors. CSOs are not able to cover percentage of service costs, as well as a portion of their proportional overhead costs with funds allocated to them by the overhead expenditures. state.  Improvement of regular payment dynamics, to stipulate activity  Payment dynamics largely depend on the competent institution by implementation and service provision by CSOs. which funds are awarded. Practice (possible other):  Some CSOs experienced irregular or late payments.  Same as BCSDN’s.

Clarity of procedures for contracting services and transparency in Clarity of procedures for contracting services and transparency in selection of service providers including CSOs selection of service providers including CSOs Clarity of procedures for contracting services and transparency in Legislation: Legislation (BCSDN): selection of service providers including CSOs

Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 39 Legislation:  The Law on Public Procurement determines procedure, and  Introduction of clear procedures and options (as a base for the 1) There is a clear and transparent procedure through which the guarantees transparency in the process of selecting service funding of services) to be distributed to providers, where they funding for services is distributed among providers.(3.3.3.L1) providers. There are no clear procedures when funding for services are not already established. 2) Price is not the lead criterion for selection of service providers and is distributed through different mechanisms.  Improvement of standards in all services, and development of best value is determined by both service quality and a financial  It is generally considered that state institutions have priority or standards for social services, alongside the introduction of assessment of contenders. (3.3.3.L2) precedence in certain service provision, compared with CSOs. measurement methods for user satisfaction and service quality, 3) There are clear guidelines on how to ensure transparency and  Price is a criterion that separates public and private sector services, and the publication of obtained results. avoid conflict of interests. (3.3.3.L3) but there is no indication that a higher price guarantees higher  Strengthening of transparency so that CSO representatives can 4) There is a right to appeal against competition results. (3.3.3.L4) quality. participate in selection committees for the awarding of those Practice:  Transparency of processes is mainly provided through application of projects and funds for which they are able to provide services. 1) Many services are contracted to CSOs. (3.3.3.P1) the Law on Public Procurement, and by public calls for the financing  Introduction of clear procedures to prevent conflicts of interest 2) Competitions are considered fair and conflicts of interest are of projects, which may include the provision of certain services by for all parties (members of project selection committees) when avoided. (3.3.3.P2) CSOs. making decisions regarding the allocation of funds for service 3) State officials have sufficient capacity to organize the procedures.  Candidates have the right to appeal competition results, but overall provision at all authority levels and in all institutions. (3.3.3.P3) opinion and experience shows that results of public calls will not be  Improvement of procedures for processing complaints and revised or changed after receipt of an appeal. providing answers and explanations, regarding initial selection Practice: and appeal processes.  Many services are not contracted to CSOs. Legislation (possible other):  CSOs generally provide auxiliary or supplementary assistance in the  Same as BCSDN’s. provision of services usually supplied by the state. Alternatively, Practice (BCSDN): they provide services for which the state does not have the capacity  Increasing of the number and range of services provided by or interest to supply itself. CSOs in all sectors  It is believed that open competitions are unfair in many cases,  Obligation of members of project selection committees to sign because applicants have no access to feedback, or the reasons and a statement confirming that they have no conflicting interests criteria according to which certain contracts were awarded. when selecting proposals for service provision.  There are no procedures in place to prevent conflicts of interest.  Strengthening of the capacities of national institutions, and the  It is believed that government officials are not competent enough to knowledge and skills of civil servants, to organize open organize procedures, or to offer the additional explanations and competition procedures for awarding the provision of particular guidelines required by applicants, although this varies between services by CSOs. institutions. Practice (possible other):  Same as BCSDN’s.

Clarity of a system for accountability, monitoring and evaluation of Clarity of a system for accountability, monitoring and evaluation service provision of service provision Clarity of a system for accountability, monitoring and evaluation of Legislation: Legislation (BCSDN): service provision  There are legal possibilities for monitoring service provision by  Introduction of quality standards and monitoring procedures, Legislation: CSOs. based on previously established objectives and measurable 1) There is legal possibility for monitoring both spending and the  Quality standards and monitoring procedures are not strictly indicators. quality of service providers. (3.3.4.L1) defined, and depend on sector legislation and the state institution  Development of templates for comprehensive or condensed 2) There are clear quality standards and monitoring procedures for in question. forms of: monitoring; evaluation; quantification of successful services. (3.3.4.L2) Practice: application of funds; and quality of the application of funds and Practice:  General opinion and experience is that there is inadequate quality services provided. 1) CSOs are not subject to excessive control. (3.3.4.P1) control of services provided by CSOs.  Utilization of campaigns to raise awareness about the need for 2) Monitoring is performed on a regular basis according to pre-

Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 40 announced procedures and criteria. (3.3.4.P2)  Monitoring is mainly based on the submission of financial and/or constant and transparent reviewing of service quality. 3) Regular evaluation of quality and effects/impact of services narrative reports by CSOs to the state institutions that awarded Legislation (possible other): provided is carried out and publicly available. (3.3.4.P3) funds for the provision of certain services.  Ensure that legislation recognises quality standards of  In most cases, there is no regular monitoring or evaluation of the provision of the services. quality and effects of services provided. Practice (BCSDN):  Information about the services provided by CSOs is rarely available  Introduction of mandatory CSO narrative and financial reports, to the public. to be submitted to the relevant institutions.  Introduction of field visits by expert teams from competent state institutions, aimed at monitoring CSO service provision on the ground.  Establishment of clear, comprehensive and uniform procedures and criteria for monitoring the quality of services provided.  Establishment of criteria for evaluating the quality and effects of these services, based on concrete visible and measurable indicators, and the views of end-users.  Enablement of public access (primarily for current and potential users) to information on the quality and impacts/effects of services provided.  Publicly available evaluations Practice (possible other):  Same as BCSDN’s Changing relations CSOs and government 3 Civil society and 3.1. Public institutions recognise the importance of CSOs in improving good governance through CSOs' inclusion in decision making processes public institutions work in partnership 3.1.a. Percentage of laws/bylaws, strategies and policy reforms effectively* consulted with CSOs through dialogue and * in terms of: cooperation, based - adequate access to information on willingness, trust - sufficient time to comment and mutual - selection and representativeness / diversity of working groups acknowledgment - acknowledgement of input around common - degree to which input is taken into account interests - feedback / publication of consultation results 3.1.b Quality* of structures and mechanisms in place for dialogue and cooperation between CSOs and public institutions * in terms of: - CSO representation in general - representation of smaller/weaker CSOs - its visibility and availability - government perception of quality of structures and mechanisms - CSOs perception of structures and mechanisms CSO-government cooperation strategic document CSO-government cooperation strategic document 10/ 100 CSO-government cooperation strategic document Legislation: Legislation: Legislation (BCSDN): 1) There are strategic documents dealing with the state-CSO  The Agreement on Cooperation between the BiH Council of  In cooperation with CSOs, production of the Strategy for relationship and civil society development. (3.1.1.L1) Ministers and the Non-governmental sector in BiH (2007) Creation of an Enabling Environment for the Development of a 2) The strategic document includes goals and measures as well as represents the key mechanism of cooperation between CSOs and Sustainable Civil Society, along with a state-level Action Plan for

Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 41 funding available and clear allocation of responsibilities (action the Council of Ministers in BiH, through clearly stated principles and its implementation, monitoring and evaluation. plans incl. indicators). (3.1.1.L2) goals.  Clear specification of participants and working methodology is 3) The strategic document embraces measures that have been  The Strategy and Action Plan for the Creation of an Enabling necessary in the Strategy’s strategic planning process. developed in consultation with and/or recommended by CSOs. Environment for the Development of a Sustainable Civil Society was Legislation (possible other): (3.1.1.L3) initiated by the BiH Ministry of Justice, but was stopped.  Same as BCSDN’s Practice: Practice: 1) CSOs from different areas of interest regularly participate in all  The Agreement on Cooperation between the BiH Council of phases of the strategic document development, implementation Ministers and the Non-governmental sector in BiH is not being Practice (BCSDN): and evaluation. (3.1.1.P1) realized. There is currently no clearly defined mechanism or  Monitoring implementation of the Agreement on Cooperation 2) There are examples demonstrating that cooperation between state methodology for monitoring and evaluation. between the BiH Council of Ministers and the NGO sector in and CSOs and civil society development is improved and  The Council of Ministers passed the Decision on the Establishment BiH, through a clearly defined mechanism and methodology for implemented according to or beyond the measures envisaged in the of the Working Group for the Strategy for Creation of an Enabling monitoring and evaluation. strategic document. (3.1.1.P2) Environment for the Development of a Sustainable Civil Society,  Ensuring conditions are conducive to the continuation of 3) The implementation of the strategic document is monitored, along with an Action Plan for its implementation. Civil society activities of the national Strategy evaluated and revised periodically. (3.1.1.P3) representatives, proposed by the BiH Ministry of Justice, were not  Continuation of the domestic civil society campaign to establish elected in a transparent manner. the Council for Civil Society Development, and the Office for  Cooperation between CSOs and governance has been particularly Cooperation with CSOs as an advisory and expert body of the improved at local level; the Agreement between the Municipal BiH Council of Ministers. Council, Mayor and Non-Governmental Organizations was signed in Practice (possible other): 100 municipalities in BiH. Additionally, agreements were signed  Same as BCSDN’s between the governments of Sarajevo Canton and Bosnian Podrinje Canton, and the non-governmental sectors within their jurisdictions.

Accessibility of all draft policies and laws to the public (easiness Accessibility of all draft policies and laws to the public (easiness and Accessibility of all draft policies and laws to the public (easiness and and timelines) timelines) timelines) Legislation (BCSDN): Legislation: Legislation:  Introduction of amendments to the Law on the Official Gazette 1) Existing legislation obliges public institutions to make all draft and  The Law on Freedom of Access to Information stipulates exceptions that would allow access to law and bylaw regulations without adopted laws and policies public, and exceptions are clearly defined in terms of justifiable reasons why certain information cannot be paying compensation. and in line with international norms and best practices. (3.2.2.L1) communicated.  Modification of regulations, by which citizens of Bosnia and 2) Clear mechanisms and procedures for access to public  The legal framework prescribes publicly exposed policies and Herzegovina would be able to watch and listen to the relevant information/documents exist. (3.2.2.L2) drafting laws. decision-making sessions transmitted directly through the 3) There are clearly prescribed sanctions for civil servants/units for  The Law on Free Access to Information in BiH, FBiH, and RS Public Broadcasting Service. breaching the legal requirements on access to public information. regulates procedures for disclosure of information over which public  Introduction of amendments to the entity Law on Freedom of (3.2.2.L3) authorities have control. Access to Information, in compliance with state law, to notify Practice:  According to the Law on Free Access to Information in BiH, a the applicant regarding deadlines, as well as penalties for public 1) Public institutions actively publish draft and adopted laws and stipulated sum is required to be paid if a public body or official does authorities and responsible persons in the case of non- policies, unless they are subject to legally prescribed exceptions. not comply with the Law. Entity laws do not prescribe compliance with the Law. (3.2.2.P1) sanctions/penalties for non-compliance with the Law.  Advocation of the adequate application of international 2) Public institutions answer the majority of requests for access to  Drafts of laws and policies are published on websites by some standards in provision of access to documents, laws and public information within the deadline prescribed by law, in a clear institutions at state level. At entity level, the practice of publishing information without paying a registration fee. format, provide written explanations on the reasons for refusal, and draft policies is common in RS, while in FBiH only a small number of  Improvement of the content of ministries’ and institutions’ highlight the right to appeal and the procedure for appealing. institutions comply. In BD, legislation of interest to the public is websites in terms of currency and accuracy, as well as visual (3.2.2.P2) announced. At cantonal level, a percentage of draft laws are functionality. 3) Cases of violations of the law are sanctioned. (3.2.2.P3)

Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 42 published on official websites, while at the municipal level most Legislation (possible other): draft laws and policies are published on the relevant municipality’s  Same as BCSDN website. Practice (BCSDN):  Adopted laws and regulations are not always published on the  Education of CSOs regarding use of the Law on Free Access to websites of competent ministries, which are not regularly updated. Information, especially: how to obtain information; obligations In practice it is very difficult for CSOs to obtain accurate of the public authority; and where CSOs can find help if an information. appeal concerning the denial of access to information is Practice: rejected.  Most institutions do not adhere to the timeframe regarding the  Enablement of CSOs to continuously monitor existing legislation announcement of deadline extensions. In 80% of cases, delivery of application that provides the right of access to information. requested information in the form of solutions is omitted, which  Introduction of a sanctioning system for responsible indicates that there is great legal uncertainty in the process of officers/institutions who do not provide information in the seeking information in BiH. prescribed manner and within the prescribed timeframe, where  According to available data, no one has yet been charged with a it does not currently exist. Application of this system should be criminal offense for violations of the Law on Free Access to enforced where it is already established. Information in BiH. Practice (possible other):  Same as BCSDN

Representativeness of CSOs in discussions in cross-sector bodies and Representativeness of CSOs in discussions in cross-sector bodies and Representativeness of CSOs in discussions in cross-sector bodies clarity of criteria and selection process clarity of criteria and selection process and clarity of criteria and selection process Legislation: Legislation: Legislation (BCSDN): 1) Existing legislation requires public institutions to invite CSO  Institutions are not legally obliged to involve CSOs in the work of  Adoption of legislation that would enable participation of representatives on to different decision-making and/or advisory advisory or other bodies. representatives of CSOs in various bodies, where decisions are bodies created by public institutions. (3.2.3.L1)  Agreement on Cooperation between the BiH Council of Ministers made on the basis of clear and transparent criteria at all levels 2) There are clear guidelines on how to ensure appropriate and the non-governmental sector defines the obligations of the of government. representation from civil society, based on transparent and Council, and guidelines relating to the assessment of policies,  Insisting on consistent application of the Agreement, in order to predetermined criteria. (3.2.3.L2) procedures and consultations in the civil society sector. comply with the commitments of the BiH Council of Ministers Practice:  In order to strengthen cooperation between authorities and civil regarding the establishment of the Office for Civil Society as an 1) Decision-making and advisory bodies on issues and policies relevant society, establishment of SECO mechanisms (non-institutional expert advisory body, and the establishment of the Council for for civil society generally include CSO representatives. (3.2.3.P1) mechanisms) was initiated for five sectors of civil society, to be Civil Society Development in BiH. 2) CSO representatives in these bodies are enabled to freely present involved in the consultation process on IPA Funds II (2014-2020).  Regarding IPA programs, representatives of and defend their positions, without being sanctioned. (3.2.3.P2) Practice: authorities/institutions and CSOs should work together to 3) CSO representatives are selected through selection processes which  There are examples of good practice (BiH Ministry of Justice, strengthen SECO mechanisms, and involve a larger number of are considered fair and transparent. (3.2.3.P3) Ministry of Human Rights and Refugees) regarding CSO involvement organizations in planning processes. 4) Participation in these bodies does not prevent CSOs from using in working groups for certain laws, regulations and strategies. Legislation (possible other): alternative ways of advocacy or promoting alternative stand-points Despite these examples, there are still no clear and transparent  Same as BCSDN which are not in line with the position of the respective body. mechanisms by which representatives of CSOs are elected to work Practice (BCSDN): (3.2.3.P4) in decision-making and policy-making bodies.  Advocation of amendments to existing legislation that would  Representatives of CSOs in these bodies are allowed to freely allow greater representation of CSOs in the work of advisory represent and defend their attitudes without sanction. bodies.  Participation in these bodies does not prevent CSOs from using  Insistence on the introduction of transparent criteria, to allow alternative means of public advocacy or promoting their views in appointment to advisory bodies of the most competent CSO other ways. representatives with established reputations in the community. Practice (possible other):

Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 43  Same as BCSDN’s

Recognition of the state, through the operation of its institutions, of the importance of the development of and cooperation with the CS Recognition of the state, through the operation of its institutions, of Recognition of the state, through the operation of its institutions, Legislation: the importance of the development of and cooperation with the CS of the importance of the development of and cooperation with 1) There is a national level institution or mechanism with a mandate to Legislation: the CS facilitate cooperation with civil society organizations (e.g.,  At state level, the Sector for Legal Aid (Sector for Civil Society until Legislation (BCSDN): Unit/Office for cooperation; contact points in ministries; council). late-2013) operates within the BiH Ministry of Justice, and is  Establishment of a functional institutional mechanism (Office (3.1.2.L1) responsible for activities aimed at creating a favorable environment for Cooperation with the Non-governmental Sector) within the 2) There are binding provisions on the involvement of CSOs in the for civil society development in BiH. Council of Ministers for its cooperation with civil society, in decisions taken by the competent institution or mechanism(s).  The Regulations on Consultations in Legislative Drafting ensure the accordance with the Cooperation Agreement. (3.1.2.L2) participation of citizens and CSOs in the consultation process, and  Establishment of the Council for Civil Society Development of Practice: participation in the formulation and implementation of public the BiH Council of Ministers, as well as of mechanisms at lower 1) The national level institution or mechanism(s) has sufficient policy. levels of government, that would be similar or identical to those resources and mandate for facilitating CSO-government dialogue,  BiH Council of Ministers has taken some concrete steps aimed at at state level. discussing the challenges and proposing the main policies for the improving the consultations process and brining it closer to the  Establishment of more effective and inclusive models and development of Civil Society. (3.1.2.P1) citizens. Thus, a web portal for public consultations at the level of mechanisms for consultation with CSOs in relation to key 2) CSOs are regularly consulted and involved in processes and BiH CoM is currently under construction.15 reform issues of the stabilization and accession process to the decisions by the competent institution or mechanism(s). (3.1.2.P2)  There are no legislative or institutional mechanisms in place EU regulating cooperation with civil society for FBiH. Legislation (possible other):  In the RS, the legislative framework for engagement of citizens in  Same as BCSDN’s decision-making process has been set up in form of Guidelines for action of Republic bodies of management on participation of public Practice (BCSDN): and consultation in drafting laws and to a certain extent it is being  Support development of the technical and institutional implemented. 16 Still, those Guidelines need further amendments in capacities of governmental institutions and civil society order to ensure efficient consultations with the public.17 representatives through promotional and educational programs Practice: and projects, as well as through incorporation of the concept  Resources and authorities of the (former) Sector for Civil Society and practices of the Agreement into the training programs for within the BiH Ministry of Justice have not been, nor are (as the civil servants and staff implemented by the civil service current Sector for Legal Aid) sufficient for facilitating dialogue agencies. between CSOs and the government.  Enablement of the systematic involvement of CSOs in public  There is no adequate system of communication and cooperation policy creation at all authority levels, through various forms of with CSOs, nor is there regular reporting or monitoring on the informal information exchange and consultation (forums, focus situation of civil society in BiH. The Sector relied on foreign projects’ groups, workshops, roundtables, etc.), and the inclusion of resources or external experts to prepare its relevant documents. representatives of civil society in permanent and temporary  CSOs are occasionally and selectivley consulted and included in working bodies, commissions and committees. decision-making processes on behalf of institutions. Practice (possible other):  The cooperation between authorities and CSOs at the level of FBIH  Same as BCSDN’s remains quite limited.  In spring 2013, the FBiH Parliament created a CSOs register in order to consult them when a legal act is drafted. Having in mind that this register has been introduced recently, it is still too early to assess the actual use of this register.18

15 Ibid 1 pg. 28 16 RS Official Gazette, 123 year XVII 17 Ibid 1 pg. 30 18 Ibid 1 pg. 30 Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 44 Recognition of the state, through the operation of its policies and strategies, of the importance of the development of and cooperation Recognition of the state, through the operation of its policies and Recognition of the state, through the operation of its policies and with the CS strategies, of the importance of the development of and cooperation strategies, of the importance of the development of and Legislation: with the CS cooperation with the CS 1) There are clearly defined standards on the involvement of CSOs in Legislation: Legislation (BCSDN): the policy and decision making processes in line with best regulatory  Existing standards for the participation of CSOs in decision-making  Adoption and enforcement of Rules for Consultation at all levels practices prescribing minimum requirements which every policy- processes include: Uniform Rules for Legislative Drafting in BiH; of authority, where they don’t already exist. Amendment and making process needs to fulfil.(3.2.1.L1) Rules for Consultation in Legislative Drafting in BiH institutions; harmonization of existing Rules for Consultation with guidelines 2) State policies provide for educational programs/trainings for civil Guidelines for Actions of the Republic’s Administrative Bodies on at the entity level. servants on CSO involvement in the work of public institutions. . Public Participation in Legislative Drafting; public hearings;  Changes should be made to the provisions of the Rules of (3.2.1.L2) initiatives for proposing legislation; public debate; local Procedure of Assemblies by which holding of public hearings is 3) Internal regulations require specified units or officers in government, communities; open days; municipal mayors’ days (municipality regulated. line ministries or other government agencies to coordinate, monitor statutes); and a presence in municipal assemblies/councils  Introduction of a "Civil Society" program to the existing and report CSO involvement in their work. (3.2.1.L3) (municipality statutes). strategies for training and development of civil servants, with Practice:  Existing educational and training programs are not harmonized with emphasis on the role and capacity of CSOs in the policy-making 1) Public institutions routinely invite all interested CSOs to comment on the needs of civil servants to actively involve civil society process. policy/legal initiatives at an early stage. (3.2.1.P1) organizations in the decision-making process.  Organization and implementation of continuous joint trainings 2) CSOs are provided with adequate information on the content of the  On the basis of the training programs of the Agency for Civil Service of CSOs and representatives of state institutions in order to draft documents and details of the consultation with sufficient time for 2013, there is no specific training program for civil servants on improve the implementation of existing mechanisms for CSO to respond. (3.2.1.P2) the participation of CSOs in the work of public institutions. In participation in the work of public institutions. 3) Written feedback on the results of consultations is made publicly addition, the Strategy for Improvement of FBiH Civil Servants does  Enablement of the establishment of units for cooperation with available by public institutions, including reasons why some not recognize this subject in its Action Plan. civil society, through amendments and changes to regulations recommendations were not included. .(3.2.1.P3)  The Rules for Consultation in Legislative Drafting in BiH institutions, of the internal organization of ministries and other institutions 4) The majority of civil servants in charge of drafting public policies and the Guidelines for Actions of the Republic’s Administrative at all administrative levels in BiH, and harmonization of the have successfully completed the necessary educational Bodies on Public Participation in Legislative Drafting require the method of election of the coordinator for public consultations. programs/training.(3.2.1.P4) appointment of a coordinator to invite CSOs to participate in the  Introduction of a decision at the levels of the BiH Council of 5) Most of the units/officers coordinating and monitoring public consultation process. Ministries, entity governments and the Government of Brčko consultations are functional and have sufficient capacity. (3.2.1.P5) Practice: District which will regulate the coordination of all units to  Institutions do not routinely invite all interested CSOs to comment monitor and support the work of CSOs. on the process of policy and law creation. The list of interested CSOs  Definition of responsibilities and sanctions for officers and units is held by three state ministries, and partially fulfills obligations that do not comply with the internal rules that regulate the arising from the Rules for Consultation. With regard to public application of the Rules for Consultation. participation, ministries in RS follow the Guidelines for RS Legislation (possible other): Administrative Bodies. Consultations are carried out only for those  Same as BCSDN laws and regulations that have an impact on the public. Selected Practice (BCSDN): cantons also perform consultations with CSOs, some of them for all  Provision of a broader and more systematic use of the Rules for relevant laws. The Parliament of FBiH has a CSO database, but as yet Consultation in legislation drafting, not only in the creation it has not been used. process of ad hoc draft laws and legal documents, but also in  The abovementioned Rules and Guidelines envisage obligatory the process of policy development. publication of draft documents on the website of the institution  Establishment of an interactive database of CSOs according to involved. In practice, three state ministries and all RS ministries fully field of activity, for all institutions and ministries in BiH. comply with this obligation. Documents are also posted on most  Establishment of a regular reporting obligation on cooperation cantonal and municipality websites, as well as that of the of ministries/institutions and CSOs, related to the inclusion of Government of BD. On a municipality level, the municipality itself CSOs in public policy/legislation creation. enables insight into draft documents concerning the organization of  Empowerment of CSOs to use existing mechanisms for assemblies of citizens. The deadline for submission of comments is participation in public policy/legislation creation, through 21 days after the original posting, which does not always allow continuous training. enough time to write qualitative comments for further analysis.  Introduction of strategies for communication with the public at

Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 45  Written feedback to applicants’ comments should include the level of all ministries/institutions, in order to increase the information on which of the recommendations were taken into transparency of impending policies, regulations and decisions. account, why some were not, and whether recommendations were  Agreement on procedures for the submission of documents, summarized and elaborated on with the comments of other CSOs. ensuring minimum standards in terms of accuracy, objectivity, In practice, institutions rarely send this feedback. transparency and involvement, as well as an extension of the  Persons appointed to coordinate the consultation process (including timeframe for comment submission. all resulting tasks and obligations) are expected to add this work to  Strengthening of capacities of CSOs in terms of their analytical their existing duties and obligations. There is an evident lack of time approach to comment-creation, and the use of normative rules and material resources, and of adequate training to improve the in this process. work of these coordinators with CSOs.  In accordance with the Strategy for Public Administration  Despite some improvements, capacities and procedures for Reform it is necessary for all ministries and institutions in BiH to strategic planning, coordination and public policies development, as analyze the abilities of existing organizational and human well as monitoring and evaluation at all authority levels, are still capacities to carry out the tasks of public policy development. insufficient and very limited. Based on this analysis, the establishment of training should be ensured, to enable the effective performance of abovementioned functions.  Provision of adequate training for civil servants and key decision makers (ministers, deputy and assistant ministers, etc.). Practice (possible other):  Same as BCSDN’s

CSOs Capacities 4. Capable, transparent 4.1. CSOs' internal governance structures are transparent and accountable to members/constituents/beneficiaries and accountable CSOs 4.1.a. Percentage of CSOs publishing their governance structure and internal documents (statutes, codes of conduct etc.)

4.1.a. independent survey run by TACSO  20% of CSOs believe that decision making in CSOs in BiH is in compliance with prescribed rules and laws of the organisation, 56% believe that decisions are made by some individual or top management, 23% that decisions are made with prescribed rules including consultations with the employees and volunteers

 39% of CSOs stated that decision making in their organisation is in compliance with prescribed rules and laws of the organisation, 23% stated that decisions are made by some individual or top management, 37% that decisions are made with prescribed rules including consultations with the employees and volunteers

 94% of CSOs stated that they have prescribed obligations to inform the members, or Managerial or Supervisory Board, customers or general public about the results of your work

 96% CSOs inform members of their organisation about the results of their work, 93% inform founders of their organisation, 90% inform management board, 90% inform beneficiaries of their organisation,91% inform general public, 94% general assembly, and 73% inform supervisory board19

4.2. CSOs are able to communicate the results of their activities to the public

4.2.a. External perception of importance and impact of CSOs activities.

19 Ibid 4 Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 46 4.2.a. independent survey run by TACSO  49.7% of surveyed trust to NGOs in their country, general population trust the most to police 66.7% and media 66.2% of surveyed, and the least to political parties 13.5% of surveyed

 46.5% of general population do not trust to NGOs

 50.1% of the general population believes that NGOs support dealing with problems in their country, 66.2% of population believe that police supports in dealing with problems, and political party support the least 17.0%

 51% of CSOs believe that the reason for lack of public presence of CSOs is insufficient interest of the media in reporting on CSOs activities, while 49% of CSOs believe it is due insufficient (or inadequate) CSO activities

 Among topics and issues listed in the survey almost all were over 90% of its relevance, only culture and art was 89%, and rural development was 87%20

 67% of surveyed believe that CSOs in their country are active in fighting problems in human rights area, 63% believe in the area of women rights, and 61% in social care and humanitarian activities

 66% of surveyed believe that CSOs in their country are not active in fighting problems in rural development and employment, 63% believe in the area of safety, and 59% in overseening government and local government performances and fight against corruption21

4.3. CSOs are transparent about their programme activities and financial management

4.3.a. Percentage of CSOs making their (audited) financial accounts and annual reports publicly available

4.3.a independent survey run by TACSO  39% CSOs stated that they publish their statute on their web page, 36% stated that the statute is accessible to the public, 25% stated that the statute is not accessible to the public

 81% of CSOs stated that their statute is accessible to public from their office

 14% of CSOs stated that they have a rulebook and it available on their web page, 27% stated that they have a rulebook, 14% stated that have a rulebook, but it is not accessible to the public, and 30% stated that they do not have a rulebook

 38% of CSOs believe that up to 10% of CSOs in BiH publish organisational Annual Program Statement of Work, 27% believe that

20 Topics and issues assessed included: education, social care and humanitarian activities, human rights, employment, the young and their problems, culture and art, ecology, violence, rights of women, fight against corruption, fight agaiinst drug abuse and aloholism, safety, overseen government and local governemnets performances, rural development, protection of animals. 21 Ibid 4 Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 47 only 11-30% of CSOs do so, 28% believe that 31%-70% organisation publish APS of Work, and 6% believe that more than 70% do so

 24% of CSOs stated that they publish their APS of Work on their web page, and 36% stated that they do not have APS of Work accessible to public

 50% of CSOs belie that up to 10% of CSOs publish organisational financial reports, 20% of CSOs believe that 11%-30% publish financial report, 20% believe that from 31-70% and 23% of CSOs believe that more than 10% of CSO publish financial reports

 18% of CSOs stated that they have financial reports accessible to public and published on the web page, while 40% stated they do not have financial reports available to the public

 58% of CSOs believe that up to 10% of CSOs publish audited reports, and 11% believe that more than 70% publish audited reports

 12% of CSOs stated that they have audited financial reports accessible to the public by publishing it on their web page, 49% of CSOs stated that they do not have audited financial reports available to the public22

4.4. CSOs monitor and evaluate the results and impact of their work

4.4.a. Share of CSOs that monitor and evaluate their projects and programmes using baselines and quality indicators

4.4.a. independent survey run by TACSO  30% of CSOs evaluate their projects pro forma, while 70% evaluate projects with the purpose of establishing efficiency and drawing a lesson for further projects

 26% of CSOs use external evaluation for realisation of their projects

 17% use external evaluator for assessment of implementation of their organisational strategy

 74% of CSOs have established system for assessment of efficiency for realisation of conducted projects

 62% of CSOs have established system for assessment for implementation of organisation’s strategic plan23

5. Effective CSOs 5.1. CSO activities are guided by strategic long-term organisational planning

5.1.a. Share of CSOs which have developed strategic plans including human resources development activities in order to attract and retain talent

22 Ibid 4 23 Ibid 4 Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 48 5.1.a. independent survey run by TACSO  67% of CSOs have developed strategic plan, 16% do not have a strategic plan

 88% use internal evaluation when employing staff in their organisation

 51% of CSOs neither have established system for assessment of efficiency of employees in their organisation, nor 38% have internal strategic plan dealing with these issues

 26% of CSOs stated that they have a human resources development plan aimed at attacking and keeping talented associates, while 53% stated that they do not have such plan

 72% of CSO stated that they manage to keep talented associates, and 81% believe that they manage to attract quality new people24

5.2. CSOs use research and other forms of evidence to underpin their activities

5.2.a. Number of CSOs' who use adequate argumentation and analysis for achieving advocacy goals

5.2.a. independent survey run by TACSO  61% of CSOs active in public advocacy, mainly/frequently uses research for their advocacy actions, while 39% of them mainly/very rarely use research

 74% of CSOs believe that they have enough information at their disposal

 43% of CSOs use official data of national statistical offices, ministries, 38% conduct their own studies 25

5.3. CSOs regularly network within and outside country borders and make use of coalition-building for increased impact in campaigning and advocacy

5.3.a. Share of CSOs taking part in local, national, regional and international networks

5.3.a. independent survey run by TACSO  49% of CSOs indicated that they do not belong to any international network, 25% stated that belong to one international network, 12% stated that they belong to 2 international networks, 14% belong to more than 3 international networks

 18% of CSOs are not active in any of international networks, 47% are active in one international network, 17% are active in 2 international networks, and 19% are active in more than 3 international networks

 33% of CSOs indicated that they do not belong to any national network, 23% stated that belong to one national network, 14% stated that they belong to 2 national networks, 29% belong to more than 3 national networks

 10% of CSOs are not active in any of national networks, 36% are active in one national network, 20% are active in 2 national networks, and 34% are active in more than 3 national networks

24 Ibid 4 25 Ibid 4 Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 49  38% of CSOs indicated that they do not belong to any local network, 25% stated that belong to one local network, 14% stated that they belong to 2 local networks, 23% belong to more than 3 local networks

 8% of CSOs are not active in any of local networks, 38% are active in one local network, 21% are active in 2 local networks, and 32% are active in more than 3 local networks

 47% of CSOs do not find CSO networks efficient, while 53% find them efficient

 13% of CSO stated that their contributed in terms of the exchange of experience/knowledge from being member of a network, 28% stated that had a greatest benefit from the network in access to information/ exchange of information26

6. Financially sustainable 6.1. Fund-raising activities are rooted in CSOs' long-term strategic plans and the core mission of the organisation CSOs 6.1.a. Percentage of CSOs that confirm that they are able to raise funds according to their strategic plans

6.1.a. independent survey run by TACSO  83% of CSOs believe that CSOs in BiH mainly adopt to donors’ priorities and collect funds also for other activities not in line with their organisational strategic plan, while 17% of CSOs believe that CSOs in BiH mainly stich with their strategic plan and collect funds for activities in line with their strategic plan

 59% of CSOs stated that they mainly stick t their strategic plans and collects fund for activities in line with its strategic plan, while 41% stated that they adapt to donors’ priorities and collect funds also for other activities not in line with its strategic plans27

6.2. CSO have a diversified funding base, including membership fees, corporate/individual giving and social entrepreneurship

6.2.a. Diversity in CSO sources of income

6.2.a. independent survey run by TACSO  4% of CSOs stated that they did not have any donors in the past year, 20% had one donor, 37% had between 2-3 donors, 19% had 4-5 donors, and 20% over 6 donors

 59% of CSOs had income from membership fees, 40% had from citizens, 22% form local self-government and/or regional administration, 26% from other foreign private or state resources, 28% form the EU funds, 24% form governments/ministries/state administration bodies, 22% from private companies operating in the country, 11% from public companies28

26 Ibid 4 27 Ibid 4

28 Ibid 4 Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020 19 12 2013 50

Load more

  50

Copy Link