CO-OPERATION BETWEEN___ EN.Pdf

CO-OPERATION BETWEEN PUBLIC AUTHORITIES AND CIVIL SOCIETY AT LOCAL LEVEL IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union in the framework of the project “CSOs for making local democracy work” financed by the European Union through the IPA programme for civil society and media, implemented by the European Association for Local Democracy – ALDA Skopje, Association of finance officers of the local governments and public enterprises and European Movement. The publication is also supported in the framework of the “programme for decentralised cooperation between partners from Normandy and Republic of Macedonia” supported by the French Ministry of foreign affairs and the Region Normandy. The contents of the publication are the sole responsibility of ALDA Skopje and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union. Authors: Kristina Hadži-Vasileva Biljana Cvetanovska Gugoska Stanka Parać Damjanović

Published by: European Association for Local Democracy – ALDA Skopje Address: Bld Partizanski Odredi 43B /5, 1000 Skopje, Republic of Macedonia

Print: 200 copies Layout design: Promedia Printed by: Promedia

Skopje, June 2018 Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION 5 EUROPEAN STANDARDS OF GOOD GOVERNANCE AND CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AT LOCAL LEVEL 5 POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR COOPERATION 7 COMPARATIVE STUDY – EU AND THE WESTERN BALKAN COUNTRIES 8 SLOVENIA 8 Case study: Municipality Maribor 10 Case study: Municipality Novo Mesto 11 BULGARIA 11 Case study: Municipality Tundzha 13 Case study: Municipality Dobrich 14 SERBIA 14 Case study: Municipality Knjazevac 16 Case study: Municipality Kraljevo 17 Citizen Participation in Local Governance in Republic of Macedonia 17 1. The decentralisation process in Republic of Macedonia : framework of the local self-government system and citizen participation in decision making 17 1.1. Local self-government system in Republic of Macedonia 18 1.2. Legal Context of citizen participation in local governance in Republic of Macedonia 28 2. Civil Society Context Republic of Macedonia 2 3 3. Good practices of cooperation between CSOs and LSGs in Republic of Macedonia 24 Cooperation between Poraka Nasha Kumanovo and the Municipality of Kumanovo 25 Local Democracy in the Western Balkans RELOAD Programme 25 Networks for inclusive development: Vardar, Pelagonija and Northeast planning region 25 4. Case study: Decentralised cooperation between the Region Normandy (France) and Republic of Macedonia 26 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 26 RESEARCH FINDINGS 27 1. Institutions/mechanisms of cooperation between the local self-government units and the civil society organisations 27 2. Cooperation between the civil society organisations and the local self-government units 28 3. Financing of the civil society organisations from the local self-government units; 3 0 4. Experiences/recommendations for the cooperation between the local self-government units and the civil society organisations. 30 CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS 31 Bibliography: 40

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This research study has been prepared to provide an overview of the forms of co-operation between local public authorities and civil society including the presentation of good local practice within the existent framework of financial and non-financial support to CSOs in Republic of Macedonia . The main purpose of the study, apart from an insight into intersectoral co-operation and dialogue mechanisms at local level is to bring forward a set of evidence - based recommendations for further development of methodology and transparent system for financial and non-financial support to CSOs at local level. Effective, functional and sustainable mechanisms of co-operation are considered here as a key prerequisite for creating an enabling environment for civil society participation and civic activism at local level. Furthermore, these principles certainly enshrine the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, the rule of law, adherence to fundamental democratic principles, political commitment, clear procedures, shared spaces for dialogue and stimulating conditions overall for a vibrant, pluralistic and sustainable civil society. Adherence to these principles as integrated in the European values and standards of good governance and democratic participation can be perceived as an evidence of progress made within the EU integration reform process. Considering the role of local authorities as the tier of government at which three quarters of EU legislation is implemented and the role of civil society as the main actor capable of getting this process closer to the citizens, the co-operation between the two “natural” partners in achieving the local ownership over the reforms is getting increasingly important for a credible EU accession perspective not only for Republic of Macedonia, but for entire Western Balkans. These are exactly the principles to which all the countries of the Western Balkans have committed themselves while aspiring to full membership with the EU in the reform process they are undergoing, while the local practice of inter-sectoral co-operation differs from one country to another. However, the common reform “legacy” for most of these countries is related to a still insufficient level of mutual trust between all actors, lack of openness, transparency and accountability and insufficient wider public perception of the civil society as an equal stakeholder of the reform process. An enabling environment for civil society comprising different sets of policy measures, legislative and institutional framework and is therefore primarily intended to have a factual impact on education for active citizenship, informed public dialogue and participation in policy/decision making to a large extent influencing the organisational capacities of civil society and its increased legitimacy. Therefore, the study provides an insight in some of the policy measures launched by the government, and a number of initiatives by local public authorities and civil society in Republic of Macedonia in order to ensure a more enabling environment for an improved civic engagement and CSOs participation in the reforms on the way towards the EU accession negotiation process.

EUROPEAN STANDARDS OF GOOD GOVERNANCE AND CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AT LOCAL LEVEL

Public authorities in the Balkans have at their disposal diverse legislative and institutional means to facilitate the development of the civil society sector and support its active engagement in intersectoral co-operation, including adoption of policy documents and strategies for cooperation, establishment of government offices for cooperation or contact offices for CSOs at ministerial level, multi-stakeholder councils for civil society development; civil society funds/foundations; codes/regulations on compulsory citizen participation and public consultation in different stages of policy or legislation making. Most of the governments in the region have adopted policy documents (strategies, compacts, memorandum of understanding etc.) in order to create the grounds for strengthening the role of civil society. However, when it comes to the local implementation, experiences and local practice differ significantly. Therefore, it is important to closely monitor and report on some of the main areas relevant for an enabling environment for civil society development, including the freedom of association, the right to free expression; the right to communication and cooperation (with other CSOs, business community, international organisations,

5 governments); the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and the right to seek and secure resources from public funding or donor funds. Each and every, small or more significant step in this direction, i.e., towards building mutual trust and strengthening the local ownership over the reform process in which both citizens and public authorities will benefit, in the form of evidence - based advocacy and monitoring of factual implementation of the European values and standards is increasingly important. Therefore, this research study contributes to establishing of the community of good practice in the Balkans and can be promoted as the tool for good practice exchange and for developing a regional co-operation platform engaging the civil society organisations. At the European level, apart from the The European Charter of Local Self-Government (ratified by all 47 CoE members) and its Additional Protocole on the rights to participate in the affairs of local authority affirms the role of communities as the tier of government closest to the citizens for the exercise of democracy, it is important to mention the Council of Europe Code of Good Practice for Civil Participation in the Decision-Making Process which elaborates five common principles for civil participation that are enshrined in most of the country - based policy or legislative frameworks: ▶▶ participation, in terms of collecting and channelling views of various members and concerned citizens via NGOs to input the political decision-making process; ▶▶ trust, as honest interaction between actors and sectors; ▶▶ accountability and transparency, from both NGOs and public authorities at all stages; ▶▶ independence of NGOs, as it is important to recognise NGOs as free and independent bodies in respect to their aims, decisions and activities. More specifically, Council of Europe principles enshrined in policy making processes are determined as an adequate set of measures in support of public information provision, consultation and participation: ▶▶ At all stages of decision making, all appropriate information should be presented in clear and easily under- standable language and in an appropriate and accessible format, without undue administrative obstacles and, in principle, free of charge, in accordance with open data principles. ▶▶ Public authorities should provide the widest possible access, both offline and online, to key documents and information without restrictions on analysis and re-use of such information. ▶▶ Consultation allows public authorities to collect the views of individuals, NGOs and civil society at large on a specific policy or topic as part of an official procedure. ▶▶ Consultation may be carried out through various means and tools, such as meetings, public hearings, focus groups, surveys, questionnaires and digital tools. ▶▶ Public authorities should provide publicly available feedback on the outcome of consultations, particularly information giving reasons for any decisions finally taken. ▶▶ Dialogue is a structured, long-lasting and results-oriented process which is based on mutual interest in the exchange of opinions between public authorities, individuals, NGOs and civil society at large. ▶▶ Public authorities, NGOs and civil society at large may consider establishing different platforms as a permanent space for dialogue and participation. Such platforms may include regular public hearings, public forums, advisory councils or similar structures. One of the key prerequisites for enabling conditions for a meaningful participation is the issue of resources that would enable NGOs to actively participate in decision-making. NGOs need adequate organisational capacities, financial and human resources to take part in the processes, either in terms of covering the costs related to the time of their personnel to attend official meetings, write comments, reach out to constituencies or to collect and analyse the feedback. In many cases, they depend only on their own resources to cover costs of these activities. Therefore, if the NGOs are expected to be able to raise funds to operate and engage in decision making processes, the government bodies should encourage and facilitate supportive legislative and financing framework regulating the compulsory forms of public participation. Finally, participatory approaches and engagement in policy / decision-making processes should be enabled not only at country level. Equally important is the local tier of governance where standards and policy documents relevant for a more conducive environment for civil society are implemented. With this in view, the Council of Europe’s twelve principles of good governance can be taken as the exemplary

6 approach underpinning participation, policy dialogue and co-operation with civil society in policy/decision making and are applicable at all government levels: Principle 1: Fair conduct of elections, representation and participation Principle 2: Responsiveness Principle 3: Efficiency and Effectiveness Principle 4: Openness and transparency Principle 5: Rule of Law Principle 6: Ethical conduct Principle 7: Competence and capacity Principle 8: Innovation and openness to change Principle 9: Sustainability and long- term orientation Principle 10: Sound financial management Principle 11: Human rights, cultural diversity and Social cohesion Principle 12: Accountability1

POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR COOPERATION

Policy documents drafted and adopted at country level are aimed to support the development of civil society and foster cooperation and public dialogue between the government and CSOs. These documents can be prepared in two forms: a) Strategies for enabling the development of CSO, and b) Co-operation Agreement (as a form of bilateral convention with the two signatories, although the signatories on the civil society side might have been contested as in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro). Both the strategies and bilateral agreements provide an overview of the existing framework and practices of cooperation, set out the characteristics and the external environment of the civil society sector, as well as the vision, grounds and directions for future partnership and the development of the sector. They encompass concrete measures and activities to be undertaken, including indicators to facilitate the monitoring of progress, determine the responsibilities of government bodies to ensure effective implementation, reporting and overseeing and achieving the results within the set timeline. Institutional structures may vary in different countries, although the offices for co-operation with CSOs located at the government level, or at a ministry are the most common solution ( as in the case of Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro) . Over the past several years, in addition to these offices, diverse institutional structures in support to co-operation with CSOs, youth groups, minorities, marginalised groups have been established at municipal level within respective local government departments. Municipal Youth offices, Roma Coordinators, Municipal councils for gender equality, Municipal commissions for inter-ethnic co-operation, local Ombudsperson, municipal office for co-operation with NGOs, local volunteering centres have been integrated in the local practice in most of the countries in the Western Balkans. Local public authorities and CSOs have become familiar with the benefits of such involvement, while the experience have shown that participative approaches require political will and full commitment on both sides in order to ensure sustainable co-operation mechanisms that would contribute to the creation of community of good local practice and certainly to building of institutional memory of modernised, responsive and accountable local democracies in these countries. Apart from the creation of sustainable participatory co-operation platforms or mechanisms, it is important to introduce and maintain the practice of reviewing and monitoring of the implementation. The truth is that the established institutional mechanisms according to adopted legislative frameworks create conditions for a longer-term inter-sectorial co-operation and dialogue. However, periodical monitoring and reviewing its implementation is essential both from the point of sustainability and even more from the point of the level of commitment of all actors included.

1 https://www.coe.int/en/web/good-governance/12-principles-and-eloge

7 COMPARATIVE STUDY – EU AND THE WESTERN BALKAN COUNTRIES

SLOVENIA

Compared with other countries in its former Yugoslav neighbourhood, Slovenia has preserved a long-standing tradition of organising civic associations since the mid-19th century, when many social and cultural organisations emerged in support to political struggle against the Austro-Hungarian Empire, that was continued through organising economic interest groups throughout the 19th century, including also the period of socialist self-management system which in Slovenia had a strong corporate elements (as compared with other parts of former Yugoslavia where the socialist self-management system was the prevailing one). Important to note is that it was in Slovenia where the very notion of „civil society“ was used first (again as compared with other countries in the region) in the context of the deepened economic and political crisis of the socialist regime between the early 1970s until the late 1990s and the collapse of the former Yugoslavia. The term civil society denoted the newly emerging autonomous interest groups, including youth and alternative culture movements who openly opposed the then one-party socialist regime. Today, civil society in Slovenia is characterised with not only a variety of traditional citizen associations, organisations of employers and employees, professional and leisure activity organisations, but also interest groups focused on human rights protection and a diversity of societal values (e.g. LGBT, green, feminist and psychiatric organisations). A wide scope of interest groups emerged with the most recent wave of globalisation (project-oriented organisations, think tanks and branches of international non-governmental organisations without individual membership, such as Greenpeace). With this in mind, the civil society in Slovenia has better developed its capacities for maintaining its role within a constantly evolving legal and institutional environment. However, in terms of operating within the context of EU democracies, an evidently shrinking space for Slovenia’s civil society is primarily related with the lack of available resources, lack of factual participation and influence in policy processes, and certainly in learning the approaches of acting in the context of the multi-level EU political system. However, an important specificity of Slovenia’s civil society today as compared with other Western Balkan countries is a higher level of civic engagement in different forms of social participation. As many as 25.9% of all Slovenians are members of at least one CSO, and a slightly larger percentage (26.8%) are members of more than one organisation. 17.9% of citizens also perform voluntary work in one of those organisations, while 14.2% do so in more than one organisation. Furthermore, CSOs actively participate (including social enterprises) in the provision of social services, thus increasingly assuming the responsibility for the provision of services that were formerly functions of the public social services sector, which makes an additional specificity as compared to other Western Balkan countries. For example, in the context of the recent international migration crisis, civil society actors have proven crucial in pressing the government for a timely and efficient solution to the problem while coordinating the generous support of volunteers and citizens’ voluntary contributions to take care of refugees. CSOs in Slovenia today are facing increasing financial problems and combined with high professionalisation, they are forced to invest their organisational capacities in searching for additional funding, either on the market or by applying for grants from various EU programs, thus resulting in limited resources for participation in the policy-oriented activities. These are some of the reasons why the overall participation and inclusion of CSOs in policymaking remains significantly lower than in older EU democracies. This trend of declining opportunities or shrinking the space for CSOs to actively engage in policy/decision making processes seem to have become a long-term trend not only in Slovenia but in other Western Balkan countries, especially when taking into account the policymaking shift toward the executive branch in the national and EU political system framework in general. According to the statistical data at the beginning of 2018, there are 27,612 non-governmental organisations registered in Slovenia, of which 24,063 associations, 3,292 (private) institutes and 257 foundations. In comparison, there were 6 more than on 30 April 2018, when there were 27,606 organisations, of which 24,063 associations,

8 3,286 (private) institutes and 257 foundations. Over the past several years, estimations say that the number of NGOs has been growing by around 620 per year. Certainly, not all registered NGOs are necessarily active. In compliance with the established practice, active organisations are those submitting their annual reports to AJPES, which is ca. 4% less than the number of registered organisations. However, in recent years, the share of public funds relative to all revenue of non-governmental organisations has been decreasing: in 2016, it was 36.16%, which is a 3.9% decrease from 2010 when it was 40.01%. Around 65% of funds originate in other sources, such as donations, memberships, sales revenue and the like. The second indicator that is based on the share of GDP allocated by the state to NGOs, is also far from encouraging. In 2016, Slovenia allocated only 0.7% of its GDP to non-governmental organisations, whereas the global average for this share is 1.4%, and the EU countries allocated to their non-governmental organisations an average of 2.2% GDP.2 When it comes to the local tier of government, in 2016, non-governmental organisations received just over € 100 million from municipalities. This means 61.23% or about € 38.32 million more than in 2003 and 10.05% or about € 9.22 million more than in 2009. As a general rule, the total amount of municipal funding of non-governmental organisations has been growing for the past ten years and throughout the period 2003-2016, non-governmental organisations received more public funds by municipalities than they did by ministries. Municipalities that allocated the highest amounts of funds to non-governmental organisations are the City of Ljubljana (€ 15.06 million), followed by City of Maribor (€ 4.76 million), City of Kranj (€ 2.27 million), City of Velenje (€ 2.13 million) and City of Celje (€ 2.08 million). In general, urban municipalities are at the forefront of municipal funding of NGOs. In 2016, 11 urban municipalities (of the total of 212 Slovenian municipalities) remitted to non-governmental organisations a combined share of 33.63% of all municipal funds for NGOs. In March 2018, Slovenia’s parliament passed the new Law on Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) which, according to the Centre for Information Service, Co-operation and Development of NGOs (CNVOS), could greatly benefit the sector. Specifically, the new law: ▶▶ defines the term “NGO”; ▶▶ allows for all types of NGOs to enjoy “public benefit” status; ▶▶ describes the roles and responsibilities of different public actors responsible for providing an enabling environment for NGOs; and ▶▶ proposes a public fund for the development of NGOs by allocating some tax revenue to civil society organisations and activities. The fund will be managed by the Ministry of Public Administration, and each year between four and five million Euro will be distributed. The law also makes it incumbent on the government to develop strategies for the development of the nongovernmental sector in Slovenia. Currently, freedom of association is ensured by law and the government has made an effort to expand the space for cooperation with civil society, with varying degrees of success and depending on the ministry and the policy area in question. The dialogue between the government and civil society, as well as systemic dispersed sources of financing and self-regulation in the NGO sector are still poor. The visibility and engagement of civil society in Slovenian public affairs has strengthened, but on the other side, a trend of losing autonomy due to exclusive dependence on public funding combined with increasing influence of political parties and lobbies in the civil society sector, are all the signals of weakening its potential for a genuine civic engagement.

Local self-government system The Republic of Slovenia has 212 municipalities out of which as many as 109 have less than 5.000 inhabitants, whilst the organisation and scope of responsibilities at local level are determined by law. The reform of local self-government system in the Republic of Slovenia (starting from 1995, and continued after joining the EU in 2004) in terms of its functional and territorial organisation has not been concluded and is still undergoing legislative and institutional adjustments. Over the past ten years, local self-government system was being harmonised with the EU standards, especially in the legislative field: ratification of ECLS, ratification of the European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Cooperation between Territorial Communities or Authorities in 2003,

2 https://www.cnvos.si/en/ngo-sector-slovenia/number-ngos

9 elimination of initial difficulties in the functioning of municipal bodies, completion of the network of new municipalities, preparation for establishment of inter-municipal co-operation (IMC) for introduction of the regions, etc. The authorities of a municipality comprise a mayor, a municipal council and a supervisory committee, with the municipal council being the highest decision-making body. The mayor, who is a directly elected official, represents and acts on behalf of the municipality, and presides over the municipal or town council. The supervisory committee super- vises the disposal of municipal property and public expenditure. municipalities have the authority to manage the municipality`s assets, facilitate conditions for economic development, plan spatial development, create conditions for building dwellings, manage local public services, establish primary and nursery schools, and build and maintain local roads. The Association of municipalities and towns of Slovenia representing the interests of municipalities in policy making and legislative issues, provides capacity building, networking opportunities and consultancy for the municipal authorities. One of the recent activities is the multiannual programme „Youth Friendly Municipality Certificate” which is a recognition jointly awarded by the Institute for Youth Policy and the Association of municipalities and towns to those Slovene municipalities that successfully implement measures in the field of local youth policies design and implementation. Such measures are aimed at integrating the ever-new generations of young people into local society, and above all to promoting young people’s participation in local policy decision making. In assessing the effectiveness of the implementation of measures, special emphasis is given to the following areas: planning of youth, youth participation, education, mobility, employment, social innovations, housing policy, youth information, youth organisation and participation in joint projects. So far thirty municipalities were declared youth friendly municipalities. As stipulated by the law, the special rights of the Roma Community in the field of co-deciding on public matters concerning the Roma Community at the level of municipality are granted. In municipalities where a representative of the Roma Community is elected to the city or municipal council in accordance with the law on local self-government a special working body for monitoring the exertion of Roma rights is founded in the municipal council. Recent experience has frequently shown that success in integrating members of the Roma Community are more evident where the Roma Community is actively included in processes and procedures concerning that community. 3

Case study: Municipality Maribor Participatory budgeting model Municipality Maribor supported the first project of introducing a participatory budget in the Radvanje MES, which is the first city quarter in Slovenia, which introduced a model for co-decision in the use ofbudgetary funds in accordance with the guidelines of the European Charter of Local Self-Government. The implementation of the first pilot project was made possible thanks to a constructive cooperation and coordination between the City Council, local administrative departments, the city decision making bodies, and owing to effective contribution of various political and civil society stakeholders who sought to co-decide on the selection and implementation of projects in urban districts. The long-term implementation of the participatory budget includes: ▶▶ increasing the efficiency of budget spending, ▶▶ raising the quality of life in the city, ▶▶ increasing the transparency of public administration, ▶▶ greater trust in public administration and democratic procedures, ▶▶ reducing social and developmental differences between the various parts of the municipality, ▶▶ accelerated economic growth. At the beginning of 2017, the mayor of the Municipality of Maribor appointed a new working group, where two representatives of the civic initiative on behalf of the civil society sector were present with representatives of the city administration. The new team was expanded to include elected representatives of the Municipal council and local neighbourhood communities in order to find solutions together among the interested civil society and elected councillors. At the beginning of 2017, the Working Party submitted a report on the work and proposals for the further work of the project to the mayor. The City Administration amended and upgraded the proposals for further work.

3 http://www.mju.gov.si/en/local_self_government/local_self_government_in_slovenia

10 Three local neighbourhood communities in urban area (Radvanje, Nova vas and Tabor) and three local neighbourhood communities in rural area (Razvanje, Limbuš and Pekre) showed interest in participating in the continu- ation of the implementation, as a process of extension of the project a participatory budgeting, and will start with the implementation of a participatory budgeting project in co-operation with local civic initiatives.

Case study: Municipality Novo Mesto Volunteering programme development Association for the Development of Voluntary Work Novo Mesto main mission is to contribute to more inclusive and open society for all. The two core programmes taking place in co-operation with the local government therefore deal with inclusion of socially excluded groups and with the stimulation of the NGO development and civil dialogue. Main activities within the programmes are performed by expert and voluntary work, focusing on solidarity, tolerance, voluntarism, active living, clean environment, citizenship awareness, social entrepreneurship and inter-cultural dialogue. In the municipality of Novo Mesto and in the municipalities of Trebnje, Črnomelj, Metlika, Kočevje and Ribnica, there are still problems that no one has solved, such as the lack of services, infrastructure or other specific problems in the local community (for example, there is no information office, lack of leisure infrastructure, environmental problems). The intention is to choose from one of NGOs proposals, collect relevant stakeholders and link them to a local co-operation partnership that will solve the problem identified in the CSO proposal. Once partnerships are established, non-governmental organisations that are included in partnerships will offer compre- hensive support for more successful cooperation (organisational, professional and / or advocacy training). The Regional NGO Centre has been a regional centre for NGOs in South-East Slovenia since 2008, with the aim to strengthen NGOs with the potential and manage processes of cross-sectoral integration of key actors in identifying and meeting the needs of the local population. Promotion and development of voluntary work is the main methodological approach in the areas of social work, education, culture, art, sport, intergenerational cooperation, human rights, migrations, migrants, advocacy, gender issues, active citizenship, international NGO cooperation, health, environmental issues, social entrepreneurship, NGO consulting, development and support, etc. The purpose of the Slovenian Network of Voluntary Organisations: ▶▶ Provide support to organisations to organise volunteering as easily as possible within their programs. ▶▶ To help organisations that need volunteers / volunteers for their work to be able to present potential volunteers / volunteers in one place online and to get them faster by publishing their volunteer needs on www. prostovoljstvo.org ▶▶ Parallel to offer searchers for volunteer work opportunities for inclusion in volunteering, as soon as possible to the path to suitable programs and at the same time as much information as possible to help them decide on volunteering.

BULGARIA

It was in 1991, that the Constitution of Bulgaria proclaimed the freedom of association as a fundamental civil right to be exercised by citizens by establishing associations to safeguard their interests. Since then, four periods can be distinguished in the development of NGOs. The first one is the period of establishment and starts at the beginning of 1990, when some of the currently largest NGOs in Bulgaria were registered in the capital city, such as the Open Society Foundation, the Centre for the Study of Democracy, the Atlantic Club, the Centre for Liberal Strategies, the Institute for Market Economics, the Applied Research and Communications Fund. The second period between 1994- 1998 was characterised by the major international donors supported programme resulting in significant increase of the number of organisations (with some 3,000 registered NGOs at the end of 1995), and with CSOs whose priorities were mainly donor driven. The third period (1995-2005) was marked by an institutional strengthening of the sector and emerging of new international donors, including also an increased support by the national public authorities. The

11 fourth period begins after 2005, when CSOs were growing thanks to a wide scope of the EU support programmes. However, the difficulties of EU membership for a young and fragile democracy influenced the civil society sector in at least two major aspects: a) as an incentive for mobilisation and reinforcing its role in reform process and b) transition fatigue coupled with the lack of mutual trust between public and civil society sector and even more between CSOs and citizens which is still an impediment for a genuine recovery of CSOs from a protracted crisis. Bulgaria’s accession to the EU in 2007, when most foreign donors withdrew from the country marked the end of a long transition to a con- solidated democracy with a working market economy which could presumably support the sustainability of a vibrant CSO sector. However, in reality, CSOs in Bulgaria failed to make full use of the access to EU funds because of their insufficient organisational capacity and/ or administrative difficulties with the national public funding, which is an important lesson learnt and worth to be shared with other Western Balkan countries. Meanwhile the main characteristic of the societal contexts marked with extremely low citizen participation in civic initiatives within which the civil society operates has remained unchanged. Civic engagement and visibility of CSOs compared both with the EU and Western Balkans statistics is low: 81.5% of all Bulgarians have not participated in any organisation, and 86.9% of them have not participated in any volunteer activities. Only 13.1% have taken part in an NGO/civic association in the last five years, only 11% have had direct contact with an NGO, yet the majority of respondents report positive experiences from that contact. According to 75%, the existence of NGOs is important for society and 63% trust them, compared to 10% trust in politicians. Starting from 2008-2009, networks of CSOs (working in advocacy, social services and even think tanks) started forming with a view to synergizing their efforts to exert stronger pressure on central/local authorities to reform certain public sectors, notably the electoral process, the judicial system, etc., but also with a view to gaining easier access to EU funding. Very few CSOs have the administrative and financial capacity required to launch a successful bid for EU funding on their own. The most recent developments in the field are, firstly, related to the wave of anti-government protests and the general political instability that hit the country in 2013/2014, and, secondly, as- sociated with the refugee crisis (2013). The effects of the anti-government protests on the development of the civil sector are manifold. On the one hand, the political instability created an unfavourable environment for CSOs. At the same time, however, the 2013-2014 period saw an outburst of civic activism, which gave birth to multiple grassroots initiatives. It also gave rise to what now seem to be sustainable new projects of cooperation between CSOs, aiming to reform the weakest public institutions and societal systems, such as the judiciary, the electoral system, etc. According to recent surveys conducted, the 41500 registered NGOs in 2015 (almost 14,000 of which were en- tered in the Registry of Public-Benefit NGOs), less than 25% were “active”, while the share of those who submitted reports to NSI for 2014 was just over 9,000. 4

Local self-government system The Municipality (obshtini – 264 municipalities) constitutes the only level at which self-government is exercised. Bulgaria is a highly centralised State, as the national Council of Ministers directly appoints district governors and all Districts are fully dependent on the State’s budget, whereas Municipalities are less dependent on the public budget. Bulgaria has 264 municipalities that act as self-governing units. The municipalities, which can set their budgets independently, are further organised into 28 regions that are headed by governors appointed by the prime minister. Regular elections for mayors and members of local councils took place on 25 October, 2015. The elections were the first to be conducted under the 2014 statute requiring voters to be registered at least six months in advance in the localities in which they vote. The elections also used preference voting in the case of municipal council members. The State authorities and their territorial sub-divisions exercise a control of legality over the acts of local government units. Besides the 1991 Constitution, the Local Government and Local Administration Act, the Municipal Property Act and a number of bylaws describe the competences attributed to the Municipalities. The Administra- tion Law describes the district’s functions and competences. Municipalities are self-governing local units able to independently resolve issues of local importance relating to: Municipal property, municipal enterprises, municipal finances, taxes and fees, municipal administration; The organisation and development of the municipal territory and its component inhabited places; Education; Health care; Culture; Public utilities and communal services; Social assistance; The protection of the natural environment and rational use of the natural resources; Sports, recreation and tourism.5 4 http://www.erstestiftung.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/civil_society_studie_issuu_e1.pdf 5 http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/untc/unpan016312.pdf

12 The local government has been proven a very active stakeholder in shaping the civil society in Bulgaria, as local NGOs are partners to municipalities and often receive funding from them. However, numerous cases of cronyism have been reported and raised concerns about CSOs being captured by local and national-level officials. Therefore, a revision of the Law on Conflicts of Interest was launched in 2009, which then included the prohibition that public and municipal officials work for or serve on the boards of NGOs. Despite these drawbacks and weaknesses of civil society positioning and not a very positive perception in the public, it can be noted that for example in 2016, a large scale civil society initiated campaign attracted thousands of participants (country-wide “Let’s clean up Bulgaria together” initiative attracted over 10,000 volunteers). In January 2017, Bulgaria marked 20 Years since civil unrest, while in March 2017, several Bulgarian civil society representatives rallied in Sofia to call upon the government to do more to prevent mayors and municipal councillors from abusing their power in relation to immigration and discriminatory measures. This supports the argument that despite the comparatively low level of citizen participation in registered CSOs activities, civic engagement in Bulgaria is on a rise. Nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) have become increasingly dynamic and assertive in recent years; widespread demonstrations against perceived government corruption and mismanagement in 2013 and 2014 helped civil society become more institutionalised and involved in political processes. In 2015, all major legislative initiatives included the input of relevant NGOs. Most notable was the participation of groups like the citizen association Justice for All in discussions and debates on judicial reform. Further examples include reform of the pension system, where trade unions and professional associations played a key role in discussions leading up to the bill’s introduction in the parliament. 6 Considering the role of CSO sector in countering high level corruption and state capture processes and in the development of transparent and well-functioning public institutions, development of inter-sectoral co-operation and dialogue remain as one the key challenges in policy reform in Bulgaria. Achieving financial independence from the government in order to become a relevant stakeholder in policy dialogue is a necessary precondition for achieving sustainable civil society sector at all levels.

Case study: Municipality Tundzha Tundzha municipality in the Yambol Province in south east Bulgaria covers 44 rural settlements and a population of 24,155 inhabitants while 25% of them are Roma. More than 50% of the Roma are under the age of 20. In the municipality, with its 44 villages, the most significant challenge is access to public services for Roma. This is partly a result of the rural, remote location of Roma settlements, as well as poor living conditions, health issues, low education and high unemployment. One of the specific problems for Tundzha municipality is access to secondary schools for Roma students. There is no secondary school in the municipality and students have to go to school in the closest city in the region. Many Roma families cannot afford to pay for school transport for their children, which creates another obstacle to con- tinuing their education beyond primary school level. In the Municipality of Tundzha, there is a strong political will to deliver change through Roma integration strategies. The for Roma, with Roma7 twinning partnership helps Tundzha to continue the development of public services in education, healthcare and employment. Twinnings are developed with local and regional authorities in order to take concrete measures in Roma integration locally and encouraging the development of a wider EU network. The “With Tundzha in the heart” platform unites the efforts of the local community in the 44 settlements of the municipality to solve important public issues through partnerships and positive constructive dialogue. It encourages and supports the involvement of local structures, organisations and business representatives in initiatives that provide for tangible and lasting change in the living conditions. The platform includes several initiatives. One of them is “The Spirit of My Village”, which supports the cultural centres (chitalishte) in creating new or enrich- ing the existing ethnographic and local lore collections in Tundzha Municipality with the joint efforts of the local community, institutions, NGOs and businesses. The goal is to enhance civil patriotic self-awareness and volunteer participation in initiatives.

6 http://www.erstestiftung.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/civil_society_studie_issuu_e1.pdf 7 https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/combatting-discrimination/roma-and-eu/twinning-activities- promote-roma-integration/tundzha_en

13 In the public call for projects announced by the local government earlier in 2018 “Together with Tundzha Munic- ipality”, 40 project proposals of community centres, mayoralties, schools and non-governmental organisations from the settlements of the municipality of Tundzha were submitted to restart of the platform ”Tundzha in the heart”. The initiative “Together with Tundzha Municipality” on the “Tundzha in the heart” platform allows local communities to define together with the municipality the “agenda” for the settlements and local neighbourhood communities to formulate and implement activities to resolve local problems and priorities, and in this way encourages people’s direct commitment by generating public resources to implement local initiatives.

Case study: Municipality Dobrich Dobrich is the eighth most populated city in Bulgaria, the administrative centre of Dobrich Province and the capital of the region of Southern Dobrudzha. It is located in the north-eastern part of the country, 30 km west of the Bulgarian Black Sea Coast, not far from resorts such as Albena, Balchik, and Golden Sands. In January 2012, Dobrich was inhabited by 90,375 people within the city limits. The city is named after the Bulgarian medieval lord of the surrounding region – Dobrotitsa. Agriculture is the most developed branch of the economy. The Municipality of Dobrich, together with the local businesses is committed to fulfil a childhood dream – a suitable urban environment for life and play. Children living in the districts of Dobrich remain far away from the sports facilities and recreational and play areas. There are many children’s playgrounds in the city, but some of them are neglected and the facilities are not well maintained. In 2016, children from two of the districts of Dobrich made a personal request to the mayor for suitable playgrounds. In response the municipality of Dobrich, in partnership with two companies, succeeded in renovation of inter-bloc spaces in two of the distant neighbourhoods. The initiative came entirely from the children living in the respective areas. The role of the municipal administration was to design the spaces and attract local businesses. The aim was the kids to be part of the process, to care about the playgrounds, and the companies – to contribute financially. As a result, all interested parties united for the cause, meetings were held with the residents in the neighbourhoods to hear their opinion on renovating the spaces. The design was carried out according to the specific needs of the areas and the requirements of the users themselves – the children living in the neighbourhoods. As a result of the reconstruction and improvement of the urban space, good conditions for sport, play and recreation of the children were provided, their parents were involved in the discussion process, and the businesses helped financially.8

SERBIA

The CSO sector in Serbia is relatively young, since the majority associations, foundations and foundations were established after 2000. The largest number of associations is in Vojvodina, then in Belgrade, while others are evenly distributed by across the country. According to the recently revised legislation regulating the associations, more than 25% of the non-governmental organisations have registered an economic activity, among them the newly formed associations, and the associations based in Vojvodina in particular. Membership in the association (network) has slightly less than a fifth of associations, amongst most of them are based in the territory of Vojvodina. The oldest associations are for the most part members of associations (networks). Foundations and endowments are mostly present in Belgrade. Of 626 foundations and endowments, foundations are the most common form of organisation with participation more than three quarters in total, while endowments with a general purpose goal make up about a fifth of the total number of foundations and endowments. In Serbia some 29,000 associations are registered (in 2017), most of the associations are based in the region of Vojvodina (34%) and in Belgrade region (29%), while there are fewer associations represented in the region of Sumadija and Western Serbia (19%), or South and East Serbia (16%). About a quarter of the associations registered an economic one activity (25.6%). Among them, as much as 77% are the associations established in the last 14 years, or 52% for associations established since 2010. 9 8 file:///C:/Users/User01/Downloads/flgr_brochure_6awarded_practices_eng.pdf 9 http://www.civilnodrustvo.gov.rs/upload/documents/Publikacije/2016/Ka%20daljem%20razvoju%20i%20održivosti%20 civilnog%20društva%20u%20Srbiji.

14 The legislative framework is the set of all existing laws, regulations and rules which directly or indirectly enable and promote the conditions for the civil society development. Considering that the civil society in the Republic of Serbia is active in all spheres of society, the legal framework for its operation is very wide so that the improvement of the work of civil society requires the continuous improvement of laws, bylaws, regulations, guidelines and other documents. One of the priorities of the Government Office for Cooperation with Civil society is to improve the legal framework for the work of civil society, through the National Strategy for an enabling environment for civil society development in the Republic of Serbia for period 2015-2019 (not yet adopted by the government). This Office is however engaged in various consultative bodies for drafting amendment of laws, bylaws and other legal acts of the Republic of Serbia whose implementation directly or indirectly affect or will affect the change of legal conditions ( legal framework) for the work of civil society organisations.10 The public visibility of civil society is rather limited. Civil society organisations face two main problems: the legacy of the Milosevic era and the perception that CSOs work for as “foreign mercenaries” and do not have legitimacy to represent citizens. After 2000, in post Milosevic era, most CSOs failed to establish an effective connection with the constituencies, which resulted in a public perception of CSOs similar to the perception of politicians: as alienated professionals who protect individual interests or those of their organisations. CSOs and trade unions also have one of the lowest levels of trust among the general population (32%), which ranks them closer to politicians (20%) as compared to the Serbian Orthodox Church, which has one of the highest trust scores (68%) among the population (Stojiljković 2011). Serbian CSOs have three main sources of funding: membership fees, state funding (provincial and local), and international organisations, agencies and foundations. Membership fees are the main source of funding for professional organisations (e.g. trade unions or business associations) or organisations delivering public services with obligatory/mass membership (e.g. automobile clubs); state support is crucial for CSOs dealing with social and health services, while international foundations support CSOs dealing with democratization and human rights (Građanske Inicijative 2012). An additional problem with state subsidies is that there are frequent irregularities in decision-making procedures. Public calls for financial support to CSOs are frequently used for the redistribution of public funds to “government-friendly” CSOs (that are close to certain parties or even to CSOs founded by the members/officials of political parties). This was the case in 2014, when the Ministry for Social Affairs allocated funds to many CSOs that were recently founded and did not have the years of experience required by the call for applications. International support was crucial for the development of civil society during the 1990s and for its transformation in the early 2000s. Some scholars consider Serbian civil society to be predominantly donor-driven. However, international support was directed only at some parts of civil society (resulting in a sort of stratification along different dividing lines) and, especially in the last ten years, it has been conditioned by cooperation between state institutions and civil society in programmes focusing on areas such as good governance, rule of law, PAR, EU integration. This shift- ed many organisations to a more cooperative position toward the public authorities. Another trend is focused on the increased influence of the Serbian government on civil society. This is partly a consequence of the change in the international actors’ agendas and their withdrawal from Serbia. Specifically, many international actors (including EU institutions and international foundations) are calling for cooperation between civil society and state institutions (as a precondition for funding), thus placing civil society in a dependent position in relation to state institutions. In response to this position, CSOs are becoming less critical and more cooperative in relations with the state, which limits their advocacy and oversight functions. Further to this, CSO professional engagement is related to the growing importance of the civil society sector based on its expertise. This experience and knowledge have arisen from the great interest in education and training developed within the civil sector. Therefore, civil society is expected to play a more important role in the upcoming stages of EU accession negotiation process. Moreover, CSOs can assist municipal and local authorities as well as private companies in their attempts to apply for European funds or to compete on the single market.

Local self-government system In the last ten years, the legislation relating to local government has qualitatively changed. The legal regulations and the practical experiences at the local level, showed that the strengthening of local government is not

10 http://www.civilnodrustvo.gov.rs/upload/documents/Publikacije/2018/Istrazivanje2015%20novi%20format.pdf

15 only the extension of jurisdiction, but also the financial autonomy and the use of their own resources in order to stimulate socioeconomic development. Serbia has a total of 174 local government units, including 150 municipalities, 23 cities and the city of Belgrade with its 17 municipalities. According to recently adopted amendments to the law, a number of improvements has been introduced to the existing system of local self-government, related to: 1) obligation of local self-government to organise public consultation; 2) extended scope of responsibilities of the Municipal Council; 3) regulation, functioning and supervision of local neighbourhood communities; 4) realisation of inter-municipal cooperation. In order to give citizens the opportunity to participate in the creation and decision-making, amendments to the law stipulate the obligation to conduct the public hearing procedure for the adoption of the most important general acts (statute, budget - in the area of planning local investments, strategic development plan, determining the rate of local revenues or adopting spatial and urban plans) and the extension of the circle of authorized proposers to conduct a public hearing, in the sense that this can be initiated by a qualified number of citizens themselves and 1/3 councillors. Also, the new Law establishes an obligation for the competent local authority to inform the public, through an Internet presentation or otherwise, that it has started preparing regulations to be passed by the assembly. Important to note are the amendments regulating the minimum number of signatures for citizens’ initiative (5% of the total number of citizens with voting rights in the local community), and in this way enables space for increased civic engagement at local level. These legislative changes were advocated also by the Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities, representing the interests of local self-governments before legislative bodies.11

Case study: Municipality Knjazevac Statistical region: South and East Serbia: Zaječarski county, area: 1.202 km., population (2011): 31,491 Web: www.knjazevac.rs The survey showed that it is only in a third of municipalities and cities (32%), which were included in the survey (103 out of 169), civilian the society was involved in making all the strategies adopted so far and plans. The majority of municipalities/cities (45%) claim to be the majority by now adopted strategic documents prepared in consultation with to all stakeholders, including representatives of CSOs. On the other hand, only 4% of local governments have explicitly stated that they did not include civil sector into strategic planning, while 19% pointed out that CSOs were involved in making less than half of the adopted strategies and plans. Areas in which the municipality Knjazevac cooperates with CSOs: ▶▶ Social protection ▶▶ Strategic planning ▶▶ Cross-border cooperation Examples of successful cooperation between the public and civil society at different levels activities / projects: 1) establishment of Local Democracy Agency based on co-operation agreement with the local government as the host city to the European Association for Local Democracy network member; 2) Center for youth engagement - established in cooperation with the Center for protection of human rights and development of youth policy – GENIUS and the Center for Creative Development - Knjazevac. The center was established in 2013 and started recording and forming a database of young unemployed persons with the aim of realisation programmes for social work and integration of young people from Knjazevac. This centre with financial, institutional and organisational support of the municipality initiates and helps create work programmes, working and business relationships with public, private and civil actors. These activities are developed for young people engaged in the Green agenda in Serbia – developed in cooperation with NGO Timocki klub. The Green Agenda was adopted by the SO Knjazevac and presents civic model - based initiatives on improving environmental awareness and living conditions. 3) Development of services for children with disabilities - in cooperation with NGOs Timok club, the project has developed new social protection services - Domestic help for children with disabilities (local service) and Compensation for children with disabilities (regional service in the east Serbia).

11 /www.pravniportal.com/nadleznosti-opstina-i-gradova-nakon-izmena-zakona-o-lokalnoj-samoupravi

16 Case study: Municipality Kraljevo Statistical region: Šumadija - Zapadna Srbija, county Raški, area: 1.530 square km, population (2011): 125.488 Web: www.kraljevo.org City department of social affairs of the City Administration of Kraljevo, Local Economic Development Office and Youth Office are the main local institutions responsible for co-operation with civil society organisations. Fields of cooperation between the City government and CSOs are: ▶▶ Strategic planning ▶▶ Preparation and realisation of projects ▶▶ Organisation of public events Examples of successful cooperation between the public and civil society at different levels activities / projects: 1. Project “Sustainable development of cycling” in cooperation with Tourist organisation Kraljevo and MTB Club “Chiker”. The cycling club “Chiker” was involved in the activities marking of mountain bike trails, organisation of cycling marathon and the implementation of educational events. 2. Project “Kraljevo day care center” in cooperation with the Center for Social Affairs work, Gerontology center and NGO “Prodor”. NGO “Prodor” was actively involved in the preparation of the Centre’s work program and the preparation of the Strategy social policy of the city of Kraljevo. 3. The project “Educational Inclusion of Roma” in cooperation with elementary school “Braća Vilotićević”, elementary school “Dimitriji Tucović”, preschool institution “Olga Jovičić-Rita” and RNVO “Hands of friendship” was launched to support inclusive education practice and build necessary skills and capacities of both CSOs and teachers involved. 4. Resource Centre of women’s association Fenomena was supported containing handbooks and manuals on gender sensitive budgeting, women’s entrepreneurial skills development, to be further used and disseminated as capacity building and professional development of targeted women groups from both rural and urban communities.

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN LOCAL GOVERNANCE IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

Citizen participation in governance is increasingly pursued in order to improve the performance of governments and to improve the public service delivery. This is particularly the case at the local level where citizen participation can influence and improve the quality of the service delivery and potentially improve the efficiency of the local institutions. The decentralisation process in Republic of Macedonia and the emerging mechanisms of participation in local governments indicate the gradual change and the ever more supportive role of local authorities in involving citizens in the community initiatives. However, despite the encouraging changes, citizens, civil society organisations and local authorities in the country need to continue devising new ways of relating to each other and working together.

1. The decentralisation process in Republic of Macedonia: framework of the local self-government system and citizen participation in decision making The decentralisation process in Republic of Macedonia is considered as a strategic goal. The process is en- couraged by the incentive of the Euro-Atlantic membership. The need to synchronize the local self-government priorities with European standards means that the country needs to enhance the quality of the decision-making processes by enabling the inclusion of local authorities and by increasing public participation. The decentralisation process came also as a result from the Ohrid (Peace) Framework Agreement.

17 One of the most important steps in the decentralisation process in the country was the ratification of the Euro- pean Charter of Local Self-Government12 in 1997. This meant a strong government commitment to the democratic principles that are shared by all member States of the Council of Europe and the recognition of the right of citizens to participate in the conduct of public affairs.

1.1. Local self-government system in Republic of Macedonia Local self-government is one of the fundamental values as stipulated in the general provisions (Article 8) of the Constitution13 of Republic of Macedonia . The Constitution devotes a separate chapter (V) to the area of local self-government whereas the constitutional right on local self-government is guaranteed in Article 114. The organic Law on Local Self-Government14 of 2002 represents the legal basis for the local self-government system and for the overall decentralisation process. It also provides the general guidelines for functioning of the units of local self-government. The administrative-territorial structure of Republic of Macedonia is based on one level of local self-government, i.e. the local level – the municipalities. According to the Law on Territorial organisation15 (2004) there are 80 municipalities plus the City of Skopje as a particular local self-government unit16. The municipalities are divided into three groups: City-municipalities; Village-municipalities; Municipalities inside the City of Skopje; and the City of Skopje itself. This last is treated as a special unit of local self-government as stipulated in the Law on the City of Skopje17. The major part of the municipalities (6) represent rural units, while the rest (4) are urban municipalities. The Law on Local Self-Government defines the responsibilities of the municipalities. It distinguishes between the general competency to perform activities of local importance and delegated competencies. The specific competencies of the municipalities, as defined in the Article 22 of the Law on Local Self-Government, refer to the following areas: urban planning; environmental protection; local economic development; communal issues; culture; sport and recreation; social welfare and child protection; education; primary healthcare; crisis management and fire protection. As for the delegated competencies, the central authorities can transfer certain functions from the central to the local level, based on the capacities of the municipality to deliver such services. In this case the central government finances the delegated functions. The competencies are carried out through the Municipal Council and the Mayor, both directly elected by the citizens, and of course by the municipal administration. The municipalities have the possibilities to create municipal companies for public services or delegate the delivery of such services to private companies or civil society organisations. The municipalities are financed in accordance with the Law on financing the local government units18 (2004). The Law sets the framework for the local financial autonomy and develops the local funding system. The municipalities are able to finance themselves through own sources of financing (local taxes, fees, charges etc.) and through the transfers of the central government. They also have the possibility to borrow from domestic and foreign capital markets. The local authorities have the right to spend their own source revenues according to the needs of the municipality for the delivery of the services they are responsible for, and independently from the central government.

1.2. Legal Context of citizen participation in local governance in Republic of Macedonia In compliance with Article 2 of the Constitution of Republic of Macedonia, the sovereignty of the state emanates from the citizens and belongs to the citizens. The citizens choose the government through directly elected

12 Law on ratification of the European Charter of Local Self-Government, Official Gazette of Republic of Macedonia, n.23/97 13 Official Gazette of Republic of Macedonia, 2011 14 Official Gazette of Republic of Macedonia, n. 5/02 15 Official Gazette of Republic of Macedonia, n.55/04 16 The City of Skopje is composed of 10 municipalities: Centar, Aerodrom, Chair, Butel, Kisela Voda, Karposh, Gazi Baba, Gjorche Petrov, Saraj, Shuto Orizari 17 Official Gazette of Republic of Macedonia 18 Official Gazette of Republic of Macedonia, n. 61/04

18 representatives, and can voice their opinions through referendum and other forms of direct representation. In addition, Article 9 states that all citizens have equal freedoms and rights, irrespective of their sex, race, colour, national and social background, political and religious conviction, wealth and social status. Generally, the Consti- tution provides the basic framework within which the citizens can articulate their rights linked to free expression and influence on legislation. As already pointed out, Republic of Macedonia ratified the Council of Europe’s European Charter of Local Self-government19 showing its commitment to the economic, social and political proximity of its legal framework to the EU. Nevertheless, in regard of the citizen participation, the Charter does not include any specific principles or forms of citizens participation at local level, but paragraph 2 of the Article 3 refers to assemblies of citizens, referendums or any other forms of direct citizen participation. The implementing measures for application of the right to participation are defined in the Additional Protocol to the European Charter of Local Self-Government on the right to participate in the affairs of a local authority. The Republic of Macedonia ratified the Additional Protocol20 in 2015. The Protocol (Article 2 paragraph 2a) sets out implementing measures for its application in practice: “procedures for involving people which may include consultative processes, local referendums and petitions and, where the local authority has many inhabitants and/or covers a large geographical area, measures to involve people at a level close to them”. Decentralisation and citizen participation are closely interconnected. A successful decentralisation process requires participation of the local community in the decision-making process. Local governments which are oriented toward their citizens and in continuous communication with them are in position to better address local needs and manage public expenses more efficiently. On the other hand, the process of decentralisation increases opportunities for inclusion of citizens in the processes of policy creation and decision-making. Hence, the exchange between the local government and the citizens needs to be practiced through institutional mechanisms which can be modified and improved over time. The decentralisation process in Republic of Macedonia and the transfer of the responsibilities to municipalities in accordance with the Law on Local Self-Government required the establishment of a number of services offered to the citizens, thus making the communication between the municipal authorities and the citizens an important and ever-more pressing issue. The right of citizens to participate in the local decision-making processes can be exercised directly or indirectly (through their representatives in local bodies elected on local elections) on different issues of local interest. The direct participation of citizens is defined as individual or collective involvement of the inhabitants of the municipality in decision-making regarding issues of local importance in different levels of decision-making. The citizens can directly participate in the decision-making process through several mechanisms laid out in the Law. The expenses for execution of the direct participation of the citizens in the decision-making process should be covered from the municipal budget. The Chapter IV of the Law on Local Self-Government (Article 25-30) prescribes the following forms of citizens’ participation: ▶▶ Civil initiative; ▶▶ Citizens’ Gatherings; ▶▶ Referendum; ▶▶ Appeals and Proposals; ▶▶ Public Hearings, Surveys and Proposals. Besides the organic Law on Local Self-Government, there is a group of laws that need to be mentioned for rounding up the legal framework for citizen participation on local level. In this regard, the Law on referendum and other forms of direct participation21, in addition to the Law on Local Self-Government, lays out the procedure for announcing and implementing referendum, civil initiative and citizens’ gathering. It practically regulates the mechanism for implementing the citizens’ initiatives regardless

19 Law on ratification of the European Charter of Local Self-Government, Official Gazette of Republic of Macedonia, n.23/97 20 Law on ratification of the Additional Protocol Official Gazette ofepublic R of Macedonia n.130/15 21 Official Gazette of Republic of Macedonia, n. 81/2005

19 whether they refer to issues of national or local importance. In this context the area for activating the mechanism for wide citizens input for issues of state policy as well as current local issues is extremely all-encompassing, so many issues can be put to the test and re-examined. Local level referendum is initiated by the municipal council for issues that fall within its competence upon its own initiative or the request of at least 20% of the citizens in the municipality. By statute and in accordance with the law, the local self-government is responsible for regulating the procedure by which a referendum is proposed. The decision adopted on the referendum is binding for the council. This type of referendum can be set up for adoption of legislation, for issues that have to be determined within the municipality, for re-assessing an adopted regulation or for issues not regulated by legislation. Decisions are considered adopted if they are voted by the majority of the total number of citizens that voted if more than half of the registered voters in the election list cast a ballot. Based on the decisions, the municipal council is obliged within 60 days of the announcement of the referendum results to regulate the issue in accordance with the results obtained. In order to use the civic initiative tool, it needs to be supported by at least 10% of the voters in the municipality, that is, of the neighbourhood self-government to which a certain issue refers. Then the municipal council is obliged to discuss the proposal at the latest 90 days after the raising of the initiative and to inform the citizens on its decision. The civil initiative is defined as a form of direct expression of citizens in decision-making by initiating initiatives in front of the Parliament and the municipal councils. This initiative can be started by submitting a proposal for changes in the Constitution, proposing adoption of law and initiating referendum at state level. It can also be used for initiating and adopting certain legislations of the municipalities and starting a referendum at local level. The citizens gathering can be convened by the mayor of the municipality upon his/her own initiative, at the request of the council or at the request of at least 10% of the voters in the municipality, that is in the neighbourhood self-government that a certain issue relates to. In this case, the Mayor is due within 30 days of receiving the initiative to organise the gathering. Also, the municipal bodies are obliged within 90 days to review the conclusions made at the citizens’ gathering and to take them into account when making decisions and determining measures on issues they relate to, and to inform the citizens on their decisions. The citizens’ gathering is a form of direct expression of citizens in decision-making of local importance and the neighbourhood units to which an issue refers. It can be used for expressing citizens’ view on particular issues of importance of the neighbourhood unit and for initiating initiatives for resolving issues of local importance. At this type of gathering, citizens living in that area review issues, take positions and prepare proposals regarding topics of direct and everyday importance on the life and work in the municipality or neighbourhood unit. Every citizen has the right, individually or as the group of citizens to submit the appeals and proposals regarding the work of the bodies of the municipality and the municipal administration. In that case, the Mayor has to create conditions for submission of appeals and proposals; to provide detailed reply for the appealer at the latest within 60 days after the receipt of the appeal, i.e. proposal; to submit the appeals and proposals that do not fall under municipal competence to the responsible (state) body and to inform the appealer about it. In the course of preparation of the regulations of the municipality, the council, that is, the Mayor, may previ- ously organise public hearings or surveys or ask for citizens’ proposals. The public’s right to attend meetings of public bodies represents a strong policy in favour of transparency in local government decision making. The Law on Local Self-Government (Article 42, Paragraph 4) stipulates that the council sessions are public, unless otherwise decided by the majority (2/3) of the councillors. However, the sessions must be public for the discussions on the municipal budget, annual municipal finance accounts and reports and the urban plans. In order to review issues and determine proposals which refer to the quality of the public municipal services and in accordance with Article 56 the Law on Local Self-Government, the council can establish a Consumer’s protection committee consisting of representatives of the bigger groups of users of public services. The municipal statute has the role of determinant of the members, ways of their selection and field of work. According to the Law on local-self-government (Article 7) the document with the highest legal power in the municipalities is the Statute. The Statute regulates the organisation and operation of the municipal organs as well as other important aspects referring to citizen inclusion in decision-making such as organising the way of informing the citizens, the cases of excluding the public from the sessions of the municipal council, appeals and proposals regarding the work of the bodies of the municipality and acting upon them, the way of organising public hearings and carrying out surveys and collecting citizens’ proposals. Every municipality can, in its Statute, propose other

20 ways of direct citizen participation in accordance with the Constitution and this Law. Such is the example with the Statutes if 2/3 of the municipalities in Republic of Macedonia which included the “community forum22” as a tool for direct citizen participation in local decision-making. The Statutes of the municipalities give the possibility of the local self-government to support citizen participation on matters related to spatial and urban planning through the participatory body. The establishment of the participatory body is related to the earlier version of the Law on Spatial and Urban Planning (Article 17)23. Accord- ing to the provisions of this version of the Law, the participatory body, needed for ensuring expertise and public participation in the process of spatial and urban planning, should be formed in the municipality. The participatory body should be comprised of representatives of the Municipal Council and the municipal administration, as well as experts of urbanism, associations of citizens and residents of the municipality. Even though the newest version of the Law on Spatial and Urban Planning24, does not prescribe the establishment of such bodies, some of the Statutes of the municipalities still contain the provisions about the participatory body25. In these cases, the municipal statute determines the number of the members in the participatory body (the number does not exceed 10 members). Also, the Law on Local Self-Government (Chapter XII, Article 82-86) prescribes that forms of neighbourhood community centres may be established in the municipalities, such as urban units (in cities) and neighbourhood units (in other populated places). The urban/neighbourhood units represent most directly at the tier closest to the citizens the right of citizens to self-government. Additionally, these forms allow citizens to position themselves before the municipality in an organised manner in accordance with the Constitution, the Law on Local Self-Govern- ment and the municipal statute. As a primary form of citizens’ organisation, the urban and neighbourhood units can also have a council. The council is to be elected by the citizens. The council can then choose the President from among its members who serves a mandate of four years. The election procedure of the members of the councils is regulated by the municipal statute. The citizens can use the urban i.e. neighbourhood units for reviewing issues, taking positions and preparing proposals for issues of direct and everyday importance for the life and work of the inhabitants of that territory. The citizens also participate in elections for council of the urban i.e. neighbourhood units. The Mayor may delegate the performance of certain activities of direct interest and everyday importance for the life and work of the inhabitants to the president of the council of the urban i.e. neighbourhood unit, in a way determined by the statute of the municipality. Another important legislation is the Law on free access to information26. With the adoption of this law in 2006 it is considered that the CSOs and the wider public acquired a powerful tool through which they can fulfil their right to information. Practically this Law provides transparency and openness in the work of the information holders and enables individuals and entities to realise their right to free access to public information. Related to the implementation of this Law is the establishment of the Commission for protection of the right to free access to information which also creates the guidelines for how to abide to these legal obligations. Despite the fact that the Law on Local self-government was adopted in 2002, the real devolution of competences began on July 1st, 2005, following the adoption of the Law on financing of local-government units when the competences that were transferred from central government level to the local government received a financial backing. This law laid out the phased approach of the fiscal decentralisation process and aimed to set-up financing mechanisms for the local governments based on transparent and objective criteria and measures. Besides determining the sources of income and their purpose within the municipal budgets, the Law in Article 32 proscribes that the municipality is obliged to prepare quarterly financial reports approved by the council and submitted to the Ministry of Finance which also are to be shared with the citizens. The same refers to the annual municipal financial reports. The main procedure for preparation, adoption and execution of the budgets in the local self-government unit, as well as reporting, is determined in the Law on execution of budgets27. There are 7 basic principles on which the budgets of the local governments and state budget are based and transparency is one of them. In Republic of 22 www.forumivozaednicata.com.mk 23 Official Gazette of Republic of Macedonia, n. 24/08 24 Official Gazette of Republic of Macedonia, n. 199/14 25 Such as Centar, Strumica, Vasilevo, Shtip, Vinica, Kriva Palanka, Gostivar, Veles etc. 26 Official Gazette of Republic of Macedonia, n.13/06 27 Law on budgets, 2012

21 Macedonia the budgets refer to one fiscal year which is 12 months and starts on January 1st and ends with Decem- ber 31st. The budget calendar is also laid out in this document and determines the whole process of budgeting at local level including the period for public debate on the budget. Article 54 stipulates that the final financial report and final account of the municipality needs to be published in the official bulletin of the municipality. Related to the transparency of the budgeting process, it is worth mentioning that there are increasing examples of local authorities in the country making use of participatory budgeting, which empowers citizens by enabling them to make funding decisions for their community. This tool was generally supported by the “community forums” introduced in statutes of 2/3 of the municipalities. According to the EU accession progress report of 201628, decentralisation, which is a basic principle of the Ohrid Framework Agreement, shows central budget underfunding and low capacity of local tax collection which compromises the capacity of some municipalities to carry out their obligations. The legal framework for local self-government needs to be reviewed. One of the main principles the Ministry of Local Self-government laid out in the Program for sustainable local development and decentralisation 2015-202029 (a basic planning document for the future development of the local self-government in the country) is the principle of subsidiarity and participation seen as a guarantee that the citizens are not only considered users of services, but also as active participants in decision-making at the local level. The Program is in line with the Europe 2020 Strategy and takes into consideration the results of the Survey of Citizens’ Satisfaction with the services provided by local governments, conducted in November 2014 by the Ministry, which indicate that citizens are least satisfied with the democracy, transparency and accountability, especially in the field of information on municipal budget spending, tackling corruption and citizen participation in making strategic decisions of local importance. The Program also proposes the complete revision of the local self-government regulation (especially the financing of the municipalities) in the country. In line with the growing need for citizens to be listened and to be able to influence politics at all levels, it’s worth mentioning the public participation on regional level. There are eight non-administrative planning regions on NUTS 3 level in the country. The planning regions are formed by grouping of the municipalities as administrative units. The Law on Balanced Regional Development30 (2007) represents a part from a huge reform of regional policy. It defines the legal and the institutional framework for regional development in the country. In view of the Law and the balanced regional development policy, there are few aspects worth mentioning when it comes to transparency and public participation on regional level. With the amendments of the Law in 201531 (Article 19, paragraph 6) the sessions of the Regional Councils (formed by the mayors of the municipalities which are part of the planning regions) must be opened for the representatives from the business sector, universities and civil society organisations (depending on the field they work in). The sessions are not only opened, but the representatives of the different groups must be invited to participate.32 This provision enables direct citizen participation in the process of defining the development priorities of the region and it also encourages the duty to contribute to the community. Furthermore, it is important to mention that the Law on Balanced Regional Development (Article 8) prescribes that the planning of regional development must be conducted with planning documents: Strategy for Regional De- velopment of the Republic of Macedonia and Program for development of the planning region (eight for each planning region). Article 9, paragraph 5 of the Law regulates that during the preparation of the planning documents for regional development it is mandatory to consult all involved parties on the national and local level. Therefore, the process of planning relies on active citizen participation and inclusion. Moreover, both Strategy33 and Programs34 rely on the principle of transparent and accountable local governance.

28 Commission staff working document the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, report 2016 29 Program for sustainable local development and decentralisation 2015-2020, Republic of Macedonia 30 Official Gazette of Republic of Macedonia, n.63/07 31 Official Gazette of Republic of Macedonia, n. 215/15 32 The previous version of the Law prescribed only the possibility to invite representatives from the economic chambers, the civil sector, the private sector etc. However, the provision was not obligatory for the Regional Councils. 33 Strategy for regional development, 2009-2019, Official Gazette of Republic of Macedonia n.119/09 34 Programs for development of the planning regions, 2015-2020

22 2. Civil Society Context Republic of Macedonia A common position on how to define civil society does not exist. In this analysis we accept the following one according to which it is defined35 as “all formal and informal citizens associations, organisations and networks which fulfil the social space between family, business sector, political parties and government sector, and which associate for fulfilment of joint goals and interests.” This definition offered by MCIC36 is upgraded based on the definition of Civicus which is the following: “space between family, state and market, where people associate in order to fulfil their interests”. Even though it is considered that the real civil society in Republic of Macedonia began to exist since the country’s proclamation of independence from former Yugoslavia (in the 1990s) it still can be said that this type of associations were not unknown in Republic of Macedonia . On the territory of Republic of Macedonia certain organisations were active even before the Second World War, mostly charity and/or missionary organisations from foreign countries. Following the liberation, the socialist modernisation enabled the existence of a whole range of cultural, sports and professional organisations sponsored and coordinated by the state. With the proclamation of independence in 1991 encouragement was provided for the development of civil society and many new organisations were registered. Practically, with the transition, new types of civil society organisations started to emerge. By the end of the 1980s organisations for environmental protection appeared. In the 1990s, as a result of the wars in former Yugosla- via, social-humanitarian organisations were set up, while in the mid-90s organisations which deal with the issues of human rights and development of democratic society emerged. This period is linked to the appearance of the first foreign donors in Republic of Macedonia (Soros in 1992) which gave encouragement and support to a wide spectre of new and young civil society organisations. Furthermore, the European perspective and the process of EU integration of Republic of Republic of Macedonia has a significant impact on the work of the civil society organisations. Generally, the Constitution provides the basic framework within which citizens can articulate their rights linked to the freedom of expression and impact over legislation. In accordance with Article 2 of the Constitution37 of Re- public of Macedonia, the sovereignty of the state emanates from the citizens and belongs to the citizens. Besides this, it determines that all citizens have equal freedoms and rights, irrespective of their sex, race, colour, national and social background, political and religious conviction, wealth and social status (Article 9). Most important in this context is that the Constitution guarantees citizens the right of associating (Article 20) for fulfilment and protection of their rights and convictions (political, economic, social, and cultural). In order to realise this, citizens are free to establish associations of citizens and to become members. Based on the Constitution, the way of establishment and work of the associations of citizens is regulated by a separate law. This law was adopted in 199838 and set the basis for the ways, conditions and procedure for establishment, registration, work and termination of the associations of citizens and foundations. Following the adoption of this Law, in conditions of intensive, mainly normative-legal changes, the need for changes and additions of this Law appeared which resulted in the adoption of its amendment in 200739. The changes were mainly “cosmetic” and referred to changes in the role and procedures of registration. The key aspect of the Law is that it defines civil society as a sector led by values. This has a direct impact on the understanding of the essence of the sector by prohibiting organisations which call for racial, religious and national hatred and intolerance, it differentiates them from political parties and this Law does not regulate trade unions, business chambers, churches and religious communities, Red Cross and, of course, the political parties, for which there exist separate laws40. The debate for adoption of a new law which would finalise regulation of this area began in 2006, and was intensified in 2008, 2009 and 2010. Already in 2008 it was clear that the Law on Associations and Foundations was 35 “After 15 years of transition – from stabilization towards civic participation”, CIVICUS Civil Society Index – Republic of Macedonia, Skopje, 2006, MCIC 36 ibid. 37 Constitution of Republic of Macedonia, Amendment I-XXXII, Official Gazette of Republic of Macedonia, 2011 38 Law on civil society associations and foundations, Official Gazette ofepublic R of Macedonia, n. 31/1998 2 July, 1998 39 Law on ratification of the Law on civil society associations and foundations, Official Gazette of Republic of Macedonia, n. 29/07 40 “After 15 years of transition – from stabilization towards civic participation, CIVICUS Civil Society Index – Republic of Macedonia, Skopje, 2006, MCIC

23 outdated and did not provide solutions which are in line with the development of the associations and foundations. As a result, in 2010 a new Law was adopted which now regulates the work of the associations and foundations41. The Law on Associations and Foundations was adopted on 16.04.2010 and came into power on 24.04.2010. As a result the old Law was not in power anymore and it was requested that all existing associations and foundations re-register according to the new Law in order to be able to continue their work. Overall, civil society in Republic of Macedonia is considered moderately developed42. This means that the level of institutionalisation and practising of values are developed and compose the stronger side of civil society. Organ- isations mostly promote non-violence, tolerance and advocate for transparency and internal democracy. On the other hand, in recent years it is noted that evermore pressing challenge is the sustainability of the sector which is still very weak both in regards to theirs capacities and in regards to the factors of external environment which influence it (legal framework for financing, contribution of the local community, political situation in the country etc.). Because of this, the impact of the civil society on social problems and policies is moderate or average and the civic engagement is low. Despite seven years having passed from the adoption of the Law, civil society organisations are still facing a number of challenges in their work. The basis for tax alleviations, provided within the framework of the Law on associations and foundations is still not functional. The direct budget support of CSOs at national and local level has the potential to be a significant source of financing of civil society organisations but there still is a lack of over encompassing and systematic approach to the issue. This means, that in practice, state institutions do not follow fully and in a harmonized manner the principles for transparency and accountability when allocating budget funds to CSOs. The amount of funds allocated to CSOs is not enough for covering needs, and this refers to both the period of time of the support (annually) and the type of support (mostly project support, while institutional support is available for only a few CSOs). A large amount of funds planned within the budget line for transfer to CSOs are allocated to political parties, sport federations and already known organisations from the sphere of social protection. Partnership relations between government and civil society remain underdeveloped. The lack of political will to implement the Strategy for cooperation of the Government with the civic sector 2012-2017 continues, but there exists readiness for the preparation of a new strategy, in the last year of its implementation. The participation of CSOs in the processes of law preparations and policy creation is significantly deteriorated. In this regard the European Commission 201643 report on Republic of Macedonia ’s progress indicates that no progress was made in the cooperation between the government and the civil society organisations. It also points out that Local government continue to lack the capacity to cooperate with CSOs. The report points out that “Both government and non-governmental actors should cooperate more constructively. The state must ensure relevant legal, financial and policy frameworks to ensure the functioning of civil society”. According to available data from the Central Registry Office44, there is an increase in the number of registered CSOs (associations and foundations). The Registry has 14.245 registered organisations in 2015 which is an increase compared to 2014 when there were 13.656. However, because the registry does not reflect precisely the situation, active organisations can be considered those that have submitted final financial report or statement and that is a total of 4.148 of which 1.497 organisations submitted final reports and 2.651 submitted only a financial statement in 2015.

3. Good practices of cooperation between CSOs and LSGs in the Republic of Macedonia Changes in regulation and capacity enhancement of the municipalities and CSOs resulted in some engagement of the civil sector in policy making on local level and in use of the civil society resources by the local public institutions. Even though there are a lot of challenges remaining, still there are some examples of good practices which demonstrate some improvement in the cooperation between the local government and the civil sector. 41 Law on civil society associations and foundations, Official Gazette of Republic of Macedonia, n. 52, 2010. 42 “Civic Engagement – Long Road to Go – Analytical Report”, CIVICUS Civil Society Index – Republic of Macedonia, MCIC, 2011 43 https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/sites/near/files/pdf/key_documents/2016/20161109_report_the_former_ yugoslav_republic_of_macedonia.pdf 44 “Report on the Enabling Environment for Civil Society Development in Republic of Macedonia, 2016”, Simona Ognenovska, Simona Trajkovska, Skopje MCIC, 2017

24 Cooperation between Poraka Nasha Kumanovo and the Municipality of Kumanovo Poraka Nasha – Regional Center for persons with intellectual disabilities is a civil society organisation from Kumanovo that works in the field of protection of the rights of persons with disabilities and offers services for the adults with disabilities (above 18). This group of persons is completely marginalised and the national institutions do not offer them any kind of support. The Municipality supports the work of the organisation and provides continuous financial support for its activities. In this case the civil society organisation is seen as a valuable mechanism for addressing the priority needs of one group of citizens (adult persons with disabilities). Through outsourcing to the civil sector the implementation of interventions related to the needs of this particular group, the local authorities are being ensured that the public interest is satisfied.

Local Democracy in the Western Balkans RELOAD Programme Local Democracy in the Western Balkans (RELOAD) is a new regional joint EU and UNDP Programme that aims to strengthen participatory democracies and European Union integration processes in the Western Balkans by empowering civil society to take an active part in decision making. Transparent project-based funding of civil society organisations in municipalities will encourage greater civic engagement in decision-making and improve the provision of services at the local level, while various forms of co-operation and partnerships between local governments and civil society will be strengthened. The ReLOaD project envisages the involvement of 5 municipalities in the country: Strumica, Resen, Kavadarci, Gostivar and Kumanovo in which the local public calls for CSO proposals in different priority areas were announced. For example, municipality of Kumanovo and the ReLOaD project invited all civil society organisations in the country to submit project proposals that are consistent with the development goals of the municipality of Kumanovo covering the following priority areas: 1. Environmental Protection 2. Protection of human rights 3. Social cohesion and poverty reduction 4. Tourism and culture 5. Youth Initiatives

Networks for inclusive development: Vardar, Pelagonija and Northeast planning region In accordance with the Law on Inter-municipal Cooperation45 (2009), the municipalities in the Vardar, Pelagonija and the Northeast planning region established 3 networks for inclusive development, one for each region, while also the networks in the Southwest and Polog region were established in the meantime. The establishment of the networks was financially supported by the Ministry of the Local Self-Government and UNDP – Skopje. The networks promote the inclusive approach in the process of regional development. They are based on the partnership model and enable engaging different stakeholders (centres for development of the planning regions, chambers of com- merce, civil society organisations and associations, academia etc.) in the process of decision-making on regional level. The participants prepare Work Programs for each of the networks and respective Action Plans with priority measures and collective actions and modalities for financing the priority collective actions. The networks play a key role in the strengthening of the capacities of the public, private, and civil sector for collaboration and coordination while performing the priority activities, and for encouraging all stakeholders in the local communities to take active part in the decision-making processes. These partnerships are innovative because they promote: dynamic multisector participation, coordination of activities between the stakeholders and improvement of the social services in the region. The example demonstrates that local authorities need to continue experimenting with new and different ways to engage stakeholders and civil society in contributing to the good governance in their communities.

45 Official Gazette of Republic of Macedonia, n. 79/09

25 4. Case study: Decentralised cooperation between the Region Normandy (France) and Republic of Macedonia Local democracy and good governance as the core of decentralised cooperation The decentralised cooperation between Normandy and Republic of Macedonia began in 2006 when the Regional Council of Lower Normandy launched a decentralised cooperation project with the Republic of Macedonia State on the topic of decentralisation. In 2007, the two territories formalised their partnership and began a three-year program of cooperation supported by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs thanks to an exceptional derogation allowing a Region to work in direct relation with a State. The European association for local democracy – ALDA acts as the coordinator of this decentralised cooperation. ALDA’s role is to serve as a connection point between partners from Normandy and Republic of Macedonia as well as to support their exchanges, create multipliers, engage new stake holders and ensure sustainability of the actions. The association acts as an Ambassador of the programme for cooperation, disseminating information to ensure the visibility of the activities on the two territories and its recognition at local level and national level in France, the Republic of Macedonia and Europe. In total 3 three-year programs of cooperation were implemented with the local governance at the heart of its projects by joining and establishing cooperation between elected officials and local stakeholders through exchange of experiences and practices on the topic of decentralisation as well as the support for European integration of the Republic of Macedonia . Aside of its innovative aspect this cooperation was for many years France’s biggest decentralised cooperation in the Balkans characterised by its sustainability and its amplitude. In total 18 local authorities from the Region Normandy (at the time Lower Normandy) and the Republic of Macedonia were engaged in the cooperation and their implication was essential for the development of actions which respond to the demands on local level and the stakes that decentralised cooperation strives to achieve in terms of good governance and local democracy. The activities in the framework of the decentralised cooperation between Normandy and Republic of Macedonia were based on multi-stakeholder partnerships: local authorities, civil society organisations, educational institutions, private sector, national institutions, experts, citizens etc. The actions developed in this consortia for the benefit of the local community and its citizens were on the topics of European citizenship, education, environment, cultural heritage, development of the local economy (tourism, agriculture etc.). The decentralised cooperation between Normandy and Republic of Macedonia has developed many good practices for cooperation between local authorities and civil society organisations mainly focused on furthering the process of decentralisation, CSO and citizens’ participation in local public life which can be replicated and create multipliers. The acknowledged significance of the decentralised cooperation is its capacity to include a large panelof stakeholders in society at local level. As a result of this approach decentralised cooperation allow to create realistic projects adapted to the needs and realities of a territory and its community, and therefore to bring forth a change which is more efficient and viable on the long therm. The local authorities and their partners act on many aspects of local life: economic and social development but also the reinforcement of local democracy. Aside from the decentralised cooperation in itself, the intern ational action of local authorities is largely di- versified. On one part, the international engagement of all types of local authorities working in twinning, but also the diversification of the approaches and objectives such as: European twinning, international solidarity, pertinent projects on exchange of experiences, thematic networks, etc. The options for local authorities in cooperation with local stakeholders which allow decentralised cooperation such as this one between Normandy and Republic of Macedonia are varied and effective thus contributing towards better local governance.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

With the purpose of gathering a mix of qualitative and quantitative information on the cooperation between CSOs and local governments a survey was undertaken. It includeda semi-structured questionnaire comprising a mixture of closed and open questions was used. The use of such questionnaire allowed us to accommodate the different responses from LSGUs and CSOs. There were two similar questionnaires designed, adjusted for the two groups of respondents.

26 The survey was conducted on-line between the end of January and February 2018. The questionnaire for the LSGs was addressed to 16 municipalities (2 per planning region; 11 urban and 5 rural municipalities). The questionnaire for the CSOs was addressed to 16 organisations based across the same municipalities. All of them responded. The questionnaire consisted of 24 questions grouped in 4 sections: 1. Institutions/mechanisms of cooperation between the local self-government units and the civil society organisations; 2. Cooperation between the civil society organisations and the local self-government units; 3. Financing of the civil society organisations from the local self-government units; 4. Experiences/recommendations for the cooperation between the local self-government units and the civil society organisations. The questionnaire also included a brief introduction that described the purpose of the research and the types of information that we were trying to collect. The questionnaire for the LSGs was destined to the employees responsible for cooperation with the CSOs.

RESEARCH FINDINGS

The main findings of the research are collected by accessing the answers given under the four survey sections.

1. Institutions/mechanisms of cooperation between the local self- government units and the civil society organisations The first section of the questionnaire consisted of 6 questions about the institutional mechanisms and approaches for cooperation between the LSGs and CSOs and the existence of strategic and planning documents regarding the cooperation between the two of them. Based on the responses from the municipalities, our findings indicate that 62% of the municipalities have established some kind of separate organisational structure for cooperating with CSOs. However, the most common approach for establishing cooperation with the civil society organisations is through the appointment of a responsible person for cooperation with CSOs. In addition, this employee, besides cooperating with CSOs, performs other tasks as well. Exception to this is only one of the surveyed municipalities which has a separate unit for cooperation with the CSOs. Chart 1. Is there a unit, department or an appointed person responsible for cooperation with the CSOs in Regarding the municipalities that do not have separate your municipality? organisational structure nor an employee responsible for cooperating with the CSOs, the survey shows that in terms of urban/rural character of the municipalities, the surveyed rural municipalities lack structured approach in the communication and cooperation with CSOs (they don’t have human capacities allocated to such task). Exception to this is only Ilinden (rural yes municipality) with an appointed person responsible for cooperation with the CSOs. no With regard to the cooperation between the LSGs and CSOs, the great majority of the local authorities (94% of respondents) carry out activities for support and development of the civil society. The most common forms of cooperation between the LSGs and CSOs are: ▶▶ Financial support for projects (financing or co-financing mutual projects, CSOs projects and activities); ▶▶ Involvement of CSOs in preparation of strategic and planning documents, preparation of legal procedures and acts etc.;

27 Chart 2. Does your municipality have a procedure ▶▶ Involvement of CSOs in different working groups and bodies; for involving and consulting the CSOs in the process ▶▶ Providing publicly owned premises for office space for CSOs. of decision-making at local level? When asked whether they have a procedure for involvement and consulting the civil society organisations in the decision-making processes at local level, 8 municipalities (50% of respondents) indicated that they do have some kind of procedure aiming to provide a framework for involving and consulting the civil society. yes On the other side, when asked about the existence of specif- no ic strategic documents (strategies, plans) on cooperation with the CSOs, 53% of the municipalities indicated they don’t have any official document for that purpose. Once again, in terms of urban/rural character of the municipalities, the survey is showing that almost all surveyed rural municipalities don’t have procedures nor strategies or other official documents on cooperation with the CSOs. Such procedures and documents exist generally in urban municipalities.

2. Cooperation between the civil society organisations and the local self-government units In order to obtain information about the level of cooperation between the LSGs and CSOs, this section was structured in 11 questions concerning issues such as: involvement of CSOs into the process of decision making on local level, citizens’ participation as well the most frequent areas of cooperation between LSGs and CSOs. With regard to the participatory preparation of regulations and local policies, 14 of the interviewed municipalities (87% of respondents) stated they have involved and consulted the CSOs into the policy making process. Additionally, the municipalities were asked to indicate the various ways they use to involve and consult CSOs in local decision-making process. The following chart 3 illustrates the various ways municipalities involve civil society in local planning processes and local decision-making. The responses of 11 mu- Chart 3. Please indicate the way your municipality involves the CSOs in the process of nicipalities (almost 69% of preparation of regulations/policies of the municipality: informing (tribunes, round tables, presentations), counselling (surveys, interviews, round tables, focus groups, meetings, thematic respondents) have confirmed gatherings, internet, web pages, social media); working bodies (involvement in ad hoc or that informing and counsel- permanent working bodies/groups for preparation of planning and strategic documents). ling are the most common method of communicating with and involving civil so- , ciety into the policy making process. , , In accordance with the , Law on Local Self-Government citizens have the right to di- , rect participation in the decision-making process in their , municipalities. The majority of , municipalities (75% of respon- , dents) use community forums informing counseling working bodies as the most popular method of participation, 56% of the respondents indicated the participation in local assemblies and 50% indicated the public tribunes. None of the surveyed municipalities mentioned citizens’ gathering as a form of participation.

28 The municipalities have also the possibilities to delegate the delivery of public services to civil society organisations. The survey responses revealed that the majority of municipalities (63% of respondents) do not delegate the delivery of services to civil society organisations. The remaining 37% of respondents pointed out that the delegated competencies usually regard the performance of the following activities: organisation of cultural events; social care for disabled persons, sheltering and sport. 94% of the surveyed Chart 4. Have the CSOs participated in local decision-making processes through some municipalities pointed out of the following forms of participation: civic initiative, citizens’ gatherings, referendum, that they implement mutual public tribunes, participation in local assemblies, community forums? projects with CSOs primary in the areas of: environmental protection, social protection and social inclusion, local economic development, participatory budgeting and 7 planning etc. The survey also asked the respondents from the municipalities about the most common areas of cooperation Ciic Citiens Referendum ublic articipation Community with CSOs. Environmental intitiatie gathering tribunes in local forums protection, culture and social assemblies protection are recognized as the most frequent areas of Chart 5. Most common areas of cooperation between LSGs and CSOs joint work, followed by local economic development, education, sport etc. The chart below depicts the areas of cooperation between the two sectors. According to respondents, 50% of municipalities consider there is a need for further improvement of the cooperation between the two sectors in other areas. They identified the need to improve cooperation in infrastructure, democracy and citizen participation, Chart 6. absorption of IPA funds etc. When it comes to frequency of cooperation almost 69% of respondents (11 mu-

nicipalities) evaluated the cooperation with CSOs as frequent and initiated from both sides.

The Chart 6, below, depicts municipal perceptions Occasional requent There is no requent requent of frequency of cooperation cooperation cooperation, cooperation, or cooperation cooperation with CSOs: depending on the initiated by both there is minimal initiated by the initiated by the needs sectors cooperation municipality CSOs

29 3. Financing of the civil society organisations from the local self-government units; One of the main preconditions for effective cooperation between the local authorities and civil society is the existence of efficient mechanism for funding. One of the purposes of the present survey was to identify the existing practices of CSOs funding and the transparency of the whole process. The third section of the questionnaire consisted of 4 questions. The survey asked the municipalities whether they have allotted (and funded) a predetermined amount of the municipal budget to the support of CSOs. 94% of the respondents (15 municipalities) stated they have separate public funds allotted to their fund to support CSOs. When asked about the modality of distribution of funds, 62% of the municipalities indicated that they have open calls for dis- Chart 7 Does your municipality have open calls for tribution of public funds to CSOs. distribution of public funds to CSOs? The municipalities were also asked if they have a methodology for distribution of public funds to the CSOs. 60% of the respondents stated that they have clearly defined criteria or methodology for financing the CSOs. yes Just as important as the transparency in distribution of no funds is the transparency in spending public funds. Therefore, the surveyed municipalities were asked if they requested submission of financial reports from the CSOs. The majority of the municipalities (75% of respondents) declared that they requested such reports from the CSOs.

4. Experiences/recommendations for the cooperation between the local self-government units and the civil society organisations. The questions in the fourth part of the survey concentrate on the evaluation of the cooperation between LSGs and CSOs as well as on the suggestions for further improvement of the cooperation between them. As pointed out in the Chart 8, most of the municipalities (65% of the respondents) perceive cooperation with CSOs as partially satisfactory, while 35% consider it completely satisfactory. Most of the municipal- Chart 8. How would you evaluate the cooperation between the LSG and the CSOs? ities emphasized that the cooperation can be further improved. Deeper analysis of the responses showed that the municipalities are not satisfied with the capacities of the CSOs to prepare quality projects and to participate in the implementation of the municipal activities and projects. The lack of transparency in spending public funds by the CSOs is also considered a problem. CSOs should concentrate on addressing priority community issues. Some of the municipalities pointed out that the communication between the two sectors should be further improved. Municipalities should also enhance participatory planning methods in order to ensure greater transparency and accountability in decision-making processes.

30 For CSOs, the municipalities considered that there is a need for further improvement in the budget programming process and the thematic allocation of funds for CSOs. The municipalities indicated ineffective communication and lack of engagement of CSOs as the biggest challenge to cooperating with them. In addition, the municipalities consider that CSOs should take responsibility for strengthening their organisational and human resource capacities. Capacity building efforts should be intensified and concentrate on areas where CSOs have shown least progress (like absorption capacities). Also, the both sectors need to further improve coordination of activities in order to ensure greater level of compliance between the strategic and planning documents of the municipalities with the CSOs activities and projects.

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

As evidenced in the survey conducted, consolidating the local self-government system in Republic of Macedonia is perhaps one of the most strategic priority of the government on the way to furthering the EU accession negotiation process. Consolidation and strengthening the role of local self-government and civil society in the reform process towards the EU integration demonstrates whether the achieved level of decentralisation has contributed to improving not only the political representation in local decision-making processes but also to providing opportunities for effective citizens participation in local governance. According to the main findings of the research, there is a need for further improvement in participatory policy and decision making specifically when it comes to municipal budget programming process and the thematic allocation of funds for CSOs. Further efforts and certainly political will are needed for improving communication and information provision by the local public authorities, but also a consistent engagement by CSOs and their full commitment to institutionalised forms and mechanisms of co-operation. These are some of the main preconditions for enhancing the transparency, accountability, and responsiveness of municipal governments and even more for re-establishing the mutual trust between policy/decision makers and citizens. Any form of dominance of political actors has already been recognized as an impediment to active citizenship and its transformative potential in the society. As stated in the recently adopted statement by the European Parliament the urban dimension of EU policies is ‘valuable and irreplaceable economic, social and cultural assets’ and should assume responsibility for territorial cohesion. Parliament stressed the key role of cities and local public authorities in the preparation, design, financing and implementation of major EU policies. “New global challenges posed by security and immigration, demographic shift, youth unemployment, challenges relating to the quality of public services, access to clean and affordable energy, natural disasters and environmental protection demand local responses. Cities have proved their capacity to efficiently manage integrated actions for sustainable urban development. Cities ask for a for public debate: regions and cities should be recognised as centres with a positive role to play in the development of EU strategies, in which global issues originate locally and are solved locally. Cities can thus have a legitimising role and can contribute to awareness-raising campaigns on EU citizens’ rights. In order to become centres of debate on the future of the Union and its policies, municipalities must appoint a councillor in charge of European affairs. A network should be established for local councillors with such a mandate”. The above listed roles and responsibilities of local tier of governance are extremely relevant message conveyed to policy decision makers not only in Republic of Macedonia but in the Western Balkans too. Genuine decentralisation and local democracy capable to assume the scope of responsibilities now coupled with the new global challenges can only take place in co-operation and partnerships with organised civil society and citizens of local communities.

31 Bibliography:

Standards on Local and Regional Democracy and Good Democratic Governance, Council of Europe. Source: http://www. coe.int/en/web/good-governance/standards Development Strategy for Local Self-Government in the Republic of Slovenia until 2020, Peer Review Report, Centre of Expertise for Local Government Reform, Council of Europe, September 2017. Source: http://www.mju.gov. si/fileadmin/mju.gov.si/pageuploads/JAVNA_UPRAVA/svlsrp.gov.si/pageuploads/lok-sam-2015/aktualno-ls/ Peer-Review-151117/Peer_Review_Report_Slovenia.pdf Structure and Operation of Local and Regional Democracy in Slovenia, Ministry of public administration, Republic of Slovenia. Source: http://www.mju.gov.si/en/local_self_government/local_self_government_in_slovenia LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT IN SLOVENIA, Dr. Stane Vlaj, IFIMES International Institute. Source: http://www.ifimes. org/en/8017-local-self-government-in-slovenia Website of Centre for Social Innovation – ZSI. Source: https://www.zsi.at/en/ Guidelines for the inclusion of civil society organizations in the regulation adoption process, Office for cooperation with civil society, Republic of Serbia, August 2014. Source: http://civilnodrustvo.gov.rs/podsticajno-okruzenje/ pravni-okvir/smernice.370.html Transparency in the funding of civil society organisations and its effects, European Delegation in the Republic of Serbia. Source: https://europa.rs/transparentno-finansiranje-organisacija-civilnog-drustva-i-njegovi-efekti Balkan Civil Society Acquis Strengthening the Advocacy and Monitoring Potential and Capacities of CSOs, Monitoring Matrix on Enabling Environment for Civil Society Development COUNTRY REPORT FOR SERBIA 2016, Bal- kan Civil Society Development Network. Source: https://www.gradjanske.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/ CI-2016-EN.pdf Partnership in Strategies and Action, Bulgarian-Swiss Cooperation Programme. Source: http://swiss-contribution. bg/en/projects/civil-society/partnership-in-strategies-and-action National Association of the Municipalities in Republic of Bulgaria Source: http://www.namrb.org/lang/en Policy papers on cooperation between the State and Civil society organisations – A Comparative analysis, Ivana Rosenzweigová, March 2016. Source: http://ecnl.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ Paper_on_cooperation_strategies_ENG_March-22-2016.pdf Making Democracy Deliver in the Western Balkans, Center for the Study of Democracy. Source: http://www.csd.bg/ artShow.php?id=18227 Regional Programme on Local Democracy in the Western Balkans, UNDP The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedo- nia. Source: http://www.mk.undp.org/content/the_former_yugoslav_republic_of_macedonia/en/home/opera- tions/projects/democratic_governance/regional-programme-on-local-democracy-in-the-western-balkans.html 2017/2037(INI) - 03/07/2018 Text adopted by Parliament, European Parliament/Legislative Observatory. Source: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/summary.do?id=1544252&t=e&l=en Civic Engagement – Long Road to Go – Analytical Report, CIVICUS Civil Society Index – Republic of Macedonia, MCIC, 2011. Source: https://www.civicus.org/images/stories/csi/csi_phase2/macedonia%20acr%20final.pdf Report on the Enabling Environment for Civil Society Development in Republic of Macedonia, 2016, Simona Ognenovska, Simona Trajkovska, MCIC, Skopje, 2017 After 15 years of transition – from stabilization towards civic participation, CIVICUS Civil Society Index – Republic of Macedonia, Skopje, 2006, MCIC