DONOR STRATEGIES AND PRACTICES FOR SUPPORTING CIVIL SOCIETY IN THE WESTERN BALKANS

Balkan Civic Practices # 11

In partnership with

This project is funded by the European Union

Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans Balkan Civic Practices # 11

Balkan Civic Practices # 11

This project is funded by the European Union

Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans

This publication been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union. Copyright © 2014 by the Balkan Civil Society Development Network and the Queen Mary University of London. All rights reserved.

Copies of the publication can be ordered by post or e-mail (below)

Balkan Civil Society Development Network (BCSDN) Address: Mitropolit Teodosij Gologanov 39/II-2, 1000 Skopje, Macedonia E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.balkancsd.net

Publisher: Balkan Civil Society Development Network (BCSDN) Editor: Tanja Hafner Ademi Authors: Mladen Ostojic, Prof. Dr Adam Fagan Design, preparation and print: Koma lab Published in Macedonia

CIP - Каталогизација во публикација Национална и универзитетска библиотека “Св. Климент Охридски”, Скопје

061.2:005.337(4-497) 061.2:339.726]:321.7(4-497)

OSTOJIC, Mladen Donor strategies and practices for supporting civil society in the Western Balkans / [authors Mladen Ostojic, Adam Fagan]. - Skopje : Balkan civil society development network, 2014. - 94 стр. : илустр. ; 30 см

Фусноти кон текстот. - Содржи и: Annex 1-2

ISBN 978-608-65711-5-3

1. Fagan, Adam [автор] а) Невладини организации - Финансирање - Западен Балкан б) Граѓански сектор - Донации - Развој на демократијата - Балкан COBISS.MK-ID 97604874 Contents

PART I: REGIONAL OUTLOOK 1. The Role of Civil Society in Donor Programmes...... 13 1.1. The Substance of Civil Society Assistance...... 13 1.2. Donor Views on Civil Society Development...... 15 1.3. Country-Specific Issues...... 16 2. Modalities of Civil Society Assistance ...... 18 2.1. Typology of Civil Society Assistance...... 18 3. Donor Views on Civil Society...... 26 3.1. Common Issues Across the Region...... 24 3.2. Country-Specific Issues...... 28 3.3. Civil Society Sustainability...... 30

PART II: COUNTRY OUTLOOK 4. ...... 34 4.1. Levels of Donor Support...... 34 4.2. Motives for Donor Presence...... 34 4.3. Plans for the Future ...... 35 4.4. Modalities of Aid Planning and Programming among Donors ...... 35 4.5. Donor Coordination...... 38 4.6. Donor Assistance to Civil Society...... 40 5. Bosnia-Herzegovina...... 41 5.1. Levels of Donor Support...... 41 5.2. Motives for Donor Presence...... 42 5.3. Plans for the Future...... 42 5.4. Modalities of Aid Planning and Programming among Donors...... 43 5.5. Donor Coordination...... 45 5.6. Donor Assistance to Civil Society...... 47 6. Kosovo...... 49 6.1. Levels of Donor Support ...... 49 6.2. Motives for Donor Presence...... 49 6.3. Plans for the Future...... 50 6.4. Modalities of Aid Planning and Programming among Donors ...... 50 6.5. Donor Coordination...... 53 6.6. Donor Assistance to Civil Society...... 55 7. Macedonia...... 56 7.1. Levels of Donor Support ...... 56 7.2. Motives for Donor Presence...... 58 7.3. Plans for the Future...... 58 7.4. Modalities of Aid Planning and Programming among Donors...... 58 7.5. Donor Coordination...... 61 7.6. Donor Assistance to Civil Society...... 63 8. Montenegro...... 64 8.1. Levels of Donor Support...... 64 8.2. Motives for Donor Presence...... 65 8.3. Plans for the Future...... 65 8.4. Modalities of Aid Planning and Programming among Donors...... 66 8.5. Donor Coordination...... 67 8.6. Donor Assistance to Civil Society...... 68 9. Serbia...... 69 9.1. Levels of Donor Support...... 69 9.2. Motives for Donor Presence...... 71 9.3. Plans for the Future...... 72 9.4. Modalities of Aid Planning and Programming among Donors...... 73 9.5. Donor Coordination...... 77 9.6. Donor Assistance to Civil Society...... 81

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions...... 84 Recommendations and the Way Ahead...... 86

ANNEX 1: List of Interviews (in alphabetical order)...... 87 ANNEX 2: Interview questions...... 90 5

List of abbreviations

ADA Austrian Development Agency BCSDN Balkan Civil Society Development Network BTD Balkan Trust for Democracy BiH Bosnia-Herzegovina CBC Cross Border Cooperation CCI Center for Civic Initiatives CfP Call for Proposals CPAP Country Program Action Plan CPCS Center for Promotion of Civil Society CoE Council of Europe CSAI Civil Society Advocacy Initiative CSF Civil Society Facility CSO Civil Society Organization CSP Country Strategy Paper CPD Country Program Document DCF Donor Coordination Forum DCSG Democracy Commission Small Grants DemNet Democracy Network DFID Department for International Development DG Directorate-General DiA Democracy in Action DIS Decentralised Implementation System DSDC Department of Strategy and Donor Coordination DSP Democratic Society Promotion EIDHR European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights 6 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans

EU European Union EUD Delegation of the European Union EUFOR European Union Force EULEX European Union Rule of Law Mission EUOK European Union Office in Kosovo FCO Foreign and Commonwealth Office FOS Fund for an Open Society FOSM Foundation Open Society Macedonia FRY Federal Republic of Yugoslavia GEF Grantmakers East Forum GIZ German Institute for International Cooperation (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit) HDR Human Development Report IFIs International Financial Institutions IPA Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance IRI International Republican Institute ISC Institute for Sustainable Communities KCSF Kosovar Civil Society Foundation KDI Kosovo Democratic Institute KFOS Kosovo Foundation for Open Society KfW Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau LAG Local Action Group LOD Reinforcement of Local Democracy MCIC Macedonian Center for International Cooperation MDGs Millennium Development Goals MDTF Multi-Donor Trust Fund MFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs MIPD Multi-Annual Indicative Planning Document MODS Network of Organizations for Children of Serbia NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization NDI National Democratic Institute NGO Non-governmental organization NORAD Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation Balkan Civic Practices # 11 7

ODA Official Development Assistance OSCE Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe OSFA Open Society Foundation for Albania OSF Open Society Foundation OSI Open Society Institute OTI Office of Transition Initiative QESH Center for Social Emancipation (Qendra per Emancipimin Shoqeror) REC Regional Environmental Centre SAA Stabilization and Association Agreement SAP Stabilization and Association Process SCO Swiss Cooperation Office SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation SEA Sector for European Affairs SEE South East Europe SEIO Serbian European Integration Office SEKO Sector Civil Society Organizations SIDA Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency SIPU Swedish Institute for Public Administration SWG Sectoral working groups TACSO Technical Assistance for Civil Society Organizations UK United Kingdom UN United Nations UNCT United Nations Country Team UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance Framework UNDAP United Nations Development Assistance Plan UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNICEF United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund UNMIK United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services USAID United States Agency for International Development WB Western Balkans WG Working Groups

Balkan Civic Practices # 11 9

Another phenomenon confirmed by the research was that donor support tends to Introduction assist and benefit already established and developed CSOs, often neglecting smaller and International financial support for civil society less-developed organisations. One of the main development in the Western Balkans has recommendations of the research was that spanned over two decades, initially starting structured donor coordination – to include a as humanitarian intervention in the wake of wide array of bilateral, private and multilateral the various violent conflicts in the region and donors – was needed to avoid duplication gradually modulating its focus to prioritise and increase the effectiveness of donors’ democratic consolidation synchronised with assistance to CSOs. European integration. However, despite the longstanding interaction between local civil society organisations (CSOs) in the Western Extending the Research: Balkans and international agencies, there Methodology are three important questions that have been Whilst the initial research provided a good largely overlooked within the existing research snapshot of the donor presence in the on civil society development in the region: Western Balkans, it was perceived necessary

a comparative understanding of the to gather detailed and additional data about rationale underpinning donors’ commitment how donors determine their priorities and to remain present in the Western Balkans devise their aid programming; more analysis for the foreseeable future; of their motivations for engagement in the region and their plans for the future was how donors interact regarding the required. For this purpose, the questionnaire development of specific civil society data were complemented with more fine- programmes; and grained interview data from representatives how key representatives from international of international agencies involved in aid agencies perceive the current state of civil programming for this report. The respondents society in the region and the impact of their from the survey in the study had identified own interventions. the EU and USAID as the most important The results contained in this report build on donors in the Western Balkans. The budgetary an initial survey of 48 donor organizations data collected in the survey indicated that in published in pilot study “Donors’ Strategies addition to these two donors, both SIDA and and Practices in Civil Society Development in the Open Society Foundation have a strong the Balkans. Civil Society Lost in Translation?”. presence in the region in terms of civil society The pilot study, which was conducted in 2011, support. For such reasons, these four donors revealed that the EU is not only the most were identified as primary respondents for influential donor in terms of the amount and this report and representatives from each of variety of the assistance provided, but it is also their offices in the region were interviewed. a driver and agenda setter for other donors’ For the primary respondents, it was also presence and interventions. In addition, the important to distinguish between strategic research showed that modalities of donors’ actors involved in aid planning (e.g. directors assistance do not always reflect needs of and heads of development cooperation) CSOs in the Western Balkan region, and and those involved in programming (e.g. there is absence of long-term core funding task managers and officers for civil society to support democracy-building activities. support). Through consultations with BCSDN 10 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans and its partners, the research team identified society development, particularly: details of further donors that are pivotal actors in some programmes; how programmes are converted places in the Western Balkans. These donors into projects or other actions; implementation were used as additional respondents for this of programmes; and their relationship study. Moreover, to minimise duplication with local CSOs. The complete interview with previous studies and to better link with questionnaire is included in Annex 2. existing research, the researchers cooperated The information in the following sections is with Kosovar Civil Society Foundation (KCSF) based on 84 semi-structured face-to-face and used their interview data from a recent interviews with representatives of international study on civil society development in Kosovo agencies conducted between September 2013 instead of collecting new data. The final list of and February 2014. Most of the interviews respondents is presented below. were recorded and transcribed verbatim in To draw out the specific expertise of the their original language. When interviewees respondents, the researchers developed two did not wish to be recorded, the information separate interview schedules for strategic was collected through taking notes. A number and programme-level personnel. Strategic of interviewees agreed to meet with the personnel were asked about: motives for researchers, but did not want to be quoted in remaining in the Western Balkans; long-term this report, and are thus not included in the plans for the future; how their strategies are final set of respondents. developed; how local priorities are reflected in programming decisions; coordination Structure of the Report with other international agencies; whether they have a specific approach to civil society The following sections of this report synthesise development; and their perceptions about the interview data collected for this research, local CSOs. On the other hand, programme- along with the data from the pilot study and level respondents were asked about the aforementioned KCSF report on donor practices and modalities relevant to civil strategies in Kosovo. The first part of the

Primary Respondents • EU • USAID • Open Society • Swedish SIDA Supplementary Respondents

Albania: WB, Swiss Cooperation Office, UNDP, OSCE, German Embassy , Dutch Embassy, US Embassy Bosnia-Herzegovina: Norway/NORAD, World Bank, UNDP, GIZ, Swiss Cooperation Office , UK Embassy Macedonia: UNCT Swiss Cooperation Office , Netherlands Embassy, GIZ, UK Embassy Montenegro: World Bank, UNDP, UNICEF, German Embassy, GIZ, UK Embassy Serbia: Norway/NORAD (also covers Macedonia, and Montenegro), World Bank, Swiss Cooperation Office , UNDP, OSCE, UNICEF, Netherlands Embassy, GIZ, UK Embassy, ERSTE Foundation (covers the whole Western Balkans), Balkan Trust for Democracy (covers the whole Western Balkans) Kosovo: KCSF interview data and personal interviews with Swiss Cooperation Office, UK Embassy, Kosovo Foundation for Open Society (KFOS), OSCE, Swedish SIDA. Balkan Civic Practices # 11 11

Donor Strategies (Strategic Personnel) • Discuss the motives for donor presence and plans for the future • Discuss how donor strategies are developed • Discuss to what extent donors take into account local priorities in the development of their strate- gies: • Discuss donor coordination • Explore donor approach to development and the how they envisage the role of civil society

Donor Strategies (Strategic Personnel) • Discuss the details of the programme • Discuss how programmes are turned into projects • Discuss how the programmes are implemented • Relationship with local CSOs • Explore how donors control the implementation of programmes • Supplementary respondents report examines donor responses regarding each country in the Western Balkans, the the role of CSOs in donor programming before following are examined: current levels of donor formulating a typology of modalities of donor budgetary support; motives for continued assistance related to civil society development. presence in the country; long-term plans; The second section concludes with general modalities of aid planning and programming; donor perceptions about civil society across donor coordination; and donor assistance the region and also highlights country-specific to CSOs. The final part of the report offers issues, as well as respondents’ perspectives conclusions based on the data collected during about the long-term sustainability of CSOs the research. These findings inform a set of in the region. The second part consists of recommendations for international donors to a series of county-level summaries. For more effectively develop local civil society in light of the broader social and political contexts in the Western Balkans, particularly given recent citizen-led mobilisations across the region without active CSO participation. Part I Regional Outlook capacity of states rather than specifically in 1. The Role of Civil terms of democratic consolidation’.2 In other words, civil society development is not an end Society in Donor in itself, but a means for policy development Programmes and implementation. 1.1. The Substance of Overall, our research corroborates these findings. Multilateral and bilateral donors Civil Society Assistance primarily work with state institutions, with One of the key objectives of this research was varying degree of assistance to civil society. to establish what role donors envisage for civil For instance, GIZ, which is one of the most society in their programmes. The substance of important bilateral implementing agencies civil society assistance in the Western Balkans in the region, almost exclusively channels its (WB) has been researched by academics and aid to state institutions. CSOs are secondary practitioners elsewhere. Nevertheless, in actors that are occasionally involved in view of the donors’ ever changing agendas the implementation of some projects. An and priorities, there was a need to update and interviewee from GIZ Macedonia thus stated build a more in-depth analysis of how donors that civil society support is a side-effect of envisage the role of civil society. their intervention, not an intended objective.3 The existing literature suggests that there This preference for channelling aid to state has been a shift in donors’ agenda from institutions often derives from the perception democracy-promotion to building good that this type of assistance is more effective governance in the mid-2000s. Civil society and sustainable than civil society assistance. development was indeed high on the priority This view is epitomized by the statement of the list of international donors in the early 2000s. UNICEF Representative in Podgorica: At the time, civil society was seen as a key Well, we have a budget of a couple of a element in pushing forward the process of million a year. But we do not really fit democratisation through civic activism. The into your model of a donor, like the NGO idea was to encourage civic engagement comes with a project and gets funding. and generate demand for democracy ‘from We’ve passed that in the Balkans, it’s the ground up’ in an attempt to develop not really our role here nor should it participation, active cooperation, deliberation be. We are actually quite sceptical that and reciprocal trust.1 Most donors have moved sometimes it does more harm than good on from this agenda in the second half of the with NGOs. (...) The paradigm of we’re 2000s. The bulk of foreign assistance now coming and doing a lot of activities and goes towards increasing the capacities of the then giving money to NGOs to support state administration and building ‘democratic these activities – this is the past, people governance’ in which CSOs play a key role shouldn’t work like this anymore. in monitoring the activities of the state, Because of the Paris declaration, contributing to policy-making and pressuring there should be a focus very much on the government to carry out reforms. As a government reform. Where reform is not result, civil society development has become happening, it is for civil society and media ‘a subordinate objective prioritised in the to advocate for that and of course we do context of building the political and institutional

1 Brown, Keith (ed.) Transacting Transition: The 2 Fagan, Adam. Europe’s Balkan Dilemma: Paths to Micropolitics of Democracy Assistance in the Former Civil Society or State-Building (I.B Tauris, 2010) Yugoslavia (Bloomfield CT : Kumarian Press, 2006) 3 Interview with an official at GIZ in Macedonia. 14 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans

human rights diplomacy but it’s behind This shift in the focus of assistance from civil the scenes.4 society to state institutions is largely driven by the process of EU integration which is the As a result of this focus on government main objective for most donors in the region. reform, there is a general trend among According to Torgny Svenungsson, the Head of donors of re-directing activities from CSOs to Swedish Development Cooperation in Serbia, state institutions. When the UK embassy in the main focus of SIDA’s intervention in Serbia Podgorica opened in 2006/2007, 100 per cent is ‘padding the way for the EU accession and of assistance was allocated to CSOs. Since that is about the capacity of the administration, then, funding has increased but the priorities of agencies, of ministries, of municipalities to have changed. Today, only one third of projects be able to comply with the Acquis and with the are channelled through CSOs.5 directives and the EU regulations’.8 As a result, There are nonetheless important differences civil society assistance is seen by most donors between donors and among donor offices in as complementary to the broader government different countries. For example, the Swiss assistance programmes. Cooperation Offices have different approaches From this perspective, civil society has three in different countries. On the one hand, the principal functions in donor programmes. Swiss Cooperation Office (SCO) in Bosnia- The first is to monitor the activities of the Herzegovina (BiH) closed down its civil society state and act as a watchdog towards state development programme between 2002 and institutions in order to push for government 2004 because it was considered that the transparency and accountability. Civil society capacities of the state administration had is thus primarily seen as a mechanism of increased. This was part of a strategic shift checks and balances which constitutes a key from civil society support to state institutions element for building good governance. The support, which is seen as being more second function attributed to civil society is sustainable. Accordingly, in the medium- or to provide input to policy-making and law- long-term, the state should take over those making, and to advocate progressive change activities where CSOs are currently seen as in society. Many donors consider that civil ‘natural partners’.6 On the other hand, the society should play a key role in creating a SCO’s office in Pristina has developed a civil dialogue between elected representatives society programme in response to the shift and their constituents in order to get citizens in donor support from civil society to state actively involved in decision-making. Finally, institutions. This decision was brought in donors often resort to CSOs when there is response to the ‘need for supporting medium- no willingness or capacity to act on specific size projects and organisations with flexible issues on the part of the government. CSOs are instruments that can respond to emerging indeed often used to create pressure or open needs in the areas of minority integration, public dialogue about issues that are not on the gender equality and citizen participation in the agenda or to circumvent public bodies that are dynamic context of Kosovo’.7 not willing to cooperate. In some cases, donors 4 Interview with the UNICEF Representative in draw on service-provision CSOs to carry out Montenegro. 5 Interview with an official at the UK Embassy in ‘pilot projects’ which are then ‘offered’ to the Montenegro. government. 6 Interview with officials at the Swiss Cooperation Office in Bosnia-Herzegovina. 7 Retrieved from http://www.swiss-cooperation.admin. ch/kosovo/en/Home/Domains_of_Cooperation/ Democratic_Governance_and_Decentralisation/ 8 Interview with officials at the Swedish Embassy in Democratic_Society_Promotion on 29 April. 2014. Serbia. Balkan Civic Practices # 11 15

1.2. Donor Views on Civil Society I cannot believe that any donor has the Development objective to fund civil society. If this is In line with earlier studies, this research shows true, I think that this is disastrous. The that, on the whole, civil society development is aim should be to achieve some progress no longer a priority on the donor agenda. Most in something, and the way to achieve of the donors that have supported civil society this goal may be through partnerships development in the past consider that this is no with civil society organizations, that longer a priority because they reckon that there is, through funding some civil society is an established civil society in the region. organizations programmes. Why do I For instance, the Fund for an Open Society react in this way? Precisely because, in Serbia (FOS) does not any longer provide in this country, the mantra of funding generic capacity building or training for CSOs. civil society has turned to the opposite, According to Jadranka Jelinčić, the Fund’s where civil society organizations were Executive Director, this is something that was created not to respond to some objective necessary 20 years when civil society was social need, but primarily because there being established. Nowadays, FOS supports were resources for funding certain civil the development of specific expertise for CSOs society activities, because there were to be able to take part in policy-making or EU entire programmes of assistance to civil integration processes.9 society. These programmes have encouraged This shift in donor approach to civil society the formation of a number of civil society assistance is visible across the region. Silva organizations in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Pešić, the Human Rights Advisor at the UN many of which are not sustainable and in Macedonia, suggested that there was a many of which were formed in a supply- time when donors invested a lot in developing driven manner, and not in a demand- civil society which was seen as a pillar of driven manner, not to respond to the democratisation. This has led to the emergence objective needs of the community, society of a strong and capable civil society, while and so on. Each of us can find a need, the state administration was lacking capacity. but the truth is that these organizations Since then, the bulk of donor assistance were formed in order to use the available has been re-oriented towards building state donor funds. Today, when those funds capacity while the space for civil society has are no longer there, we see that many of been narrowed down.10 these organizations have disappeared. The main argument against civil society Today, we see the formation of new development programmes is that civil society organisations which are really demand should not be funded for its own sake. Instead, driven and this is the real thing.11 CSOs should only be supported to carry out In line with this train of thought, donors specific tasks. This view transpires from the increasingly tend to perceive CSOs as partners statement given by a World Bank official in rather than recipients of assistance. The UNDP Bosnia-Herzegovina: in Serbia used to dedicate 70-80 per cent of its projects to civil society development, capacity-building or some other form of 9 Interview with Jadranka Jelinčić, Director of the FOS assistance to civil society. Since the capacities in Serbia. 10 Interview with Silva Pešić, Human Rights Advisor of CSOs have reached a certain level, UNDP’s at the Office of the UN Resident Coordinator in 11 Interview with an official at the World Bank office in Macedonia. BiH. 16 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans mode of cooperation with civil society has government that civil society is a priority, that evolved towards using the expertise of these ‘every country needs a strong civil society organisations in specific areas. Instead of being as an alternative voice, partly giving a voice prioritised as recipients of assistance, CSOs to citizens in a democratic function sort of compete for funding with private companies sense’.16 SIDA also engages with CSOs as a or state institutions by applying for tenders.12 means for achieving specific goals such as Similarly, UNICEF partners with CSOs in trying gender equality, justice reform or environment to push their agenda forward in Montenegro. for which CSOs often play an important role CSOs are exclusively supported in a non- both as a watchdog and in terms of advocacy. financial way through advice or technical assistance.13 The same applies for the SCO in 1.3. Country-Specific Issues Bosnia-Herzegovina which includes CSOs in While most of the assistance channelled most programmes as a necessary component through CSOs in the region is aimed at building for achieving the objectives of those good governance, democracy promotion is still programmes.14 From this perspective, CSOs a priority on the donor agenda in Macedonia, are seen as a means to achieve specific ends. and to a certain extent, in BiH due to the specific The Scandinavian bilateral donors are a notable political circumstances in these countries. Also, exception to the donors’ fading interest in civil many donors are still working on post-conflict society development. The Norwegian Embassy reconstruction in Kosovo where inter-ethnic in Belgrade still supports the broadening of relations remain a major issue. CSOs so that there are civil society actors in key fields of social development, which may MACEDONIA explain why it dedicates so much funding to Several donors have stated that the political civil society. According to Roger Jorgensen, situation in Macedonia started to go downhill the Deputy Head of Mission of the Norwegian after the Bucharest summit in 2008 when the Embassy in Belgrade, the overall objective country’s bid to join NATO was turned down. is to make a general contribution to social Since then, the ruling party is alleged to have and political development through a broad endorsed nationalism and populism in an development of the field of actors in civil attempt to take control over every part of society.15 The Swedish government sees civil society, including civil society. The situation society both as a means and as an end. This was made worst by the postponing of the EU means that SIDA has a section related to negotiations which, according to an official building a civil society enabling environment, in from the Dutch Embassy, has substantially general, but then they also see the possibility diminished the leverage of the EU. While in the to work with civil society in specific sectors past, government representatives gave a lot or result areas. SIDA supports civil society of importance to the recommendations issued as an end in itself because it considers that in the EU progress report, this is allegedly no civil society is a key for the functioning of longer the case. As a result, the government democracy. According to an official from and the political elites are less inclined to the Swedish Embassy in Sarajevo, there cooperate with civil society and Macedonian is a very clear message from the Swedish politicians are increasingly challenging the 12 Interview with an official at the UNDP office in Serbia. legitimacy of civil society on the basis that 13 Interview with the UNICEF Representative in CSOs do not genuinely represent the citizens.17 Montenegro. 14 Interview with officials at the SCO office in BiH. 16 Interview with an official at the Swedish Embassy in 15 Interview with officials at the Norwegian Embassy in BiH. Serbia. 17 Interview with an official at the Dutch Embassy in Macedonia. Balkan Civic Practices # 11 17

The perceived resurgence of authoritarianism source of expertise which can compensate in Macedonia has led several donors to for the lack of institutional memory in refocus their assistance from EU integration government institutions where there is a high to democracy promotion and human rights turnover owing to the frequent changes of protection. The Foundation Open Society government.20 – Macedonia (FOSM) has decided to close a project called ‘Citizens for a European BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA Macedonia’ which consisted in organising In the case of BiH, the work of donors has been debates around Macedonia on the name of heavily affected by state disfunctionalities and the country, the EU and NATO integration the lack of political will to work together at processes, economic problems, etc. because different levels of government. According to a they realised that EU integration is no longer SIDA official in Sarajevo, the political situation the most important priority, that it is more affects donors in several ways. At the highest important to focus on democracy and basic level, there is often no effective institution at human rights which have been put under the national level. National institutions either 18 threat. Both USAID and FOSM reintroduced do not exist or do not have political support their media programmes, which were closed for being functional. In the case where there in 2005 and 2007 respectively, in response to are effective national institutions, these the government’s crackdown on independent institutions are often undermined by the media. Supporting the media is seen as key for entity, which prevents the development and allowing other activities (monitoring, advocacy) adoption of national plans and strategies. to take place. Without independent media, Finally, the parliament and other institutions CSOs working in the field of monitoring and are constantly the theatre of political squabbles advocacy cannot inform the public about their which divert the politicians’ attention and activities and their findings. energy from much needed reforms.21 The current political situation is not a matter This political environment has had a very of consensus among donors in Macedonia. concrete impact on donor activities in BiH. For The EUD representatives have downplayed example, the EUD has helped BiH to develop the influence of the political context on strategies in social inclusion with UNICEF. their activities. In their view, the change of However, it took one year to get the strategy government has not influenced their work approved (in parliament) and it still has not because the government priorities have been approved by the Council of Ministers.22 remained the same. Accordingly, things are SIDA’s project on juvenile justice, which moving slower but the postponing of the involved developing a national strategy for negotiations process has not diminished the juvenile justice, did not bear fruit because 19 leverage of the EU. The EUD officials in Skopje of the Republika Srpska’s opposition to the primarily see civil society as a partner in the adoption of this strategy.23 In response to this process of EU integration. Irena Ivanova, the state of affairs, the EU has decided to cut the Civil Society Task Manager at the EUD, stated IPA 2013 allocation for BiH by half and suspend that the EUD does not only perceive civil the preparation of the Country Strategy Paper society as their grantees, but that they seek for IPA II. The EU has conditioned IPA II upon to utilise the expertise of CSOs in different areas. In her view, CSOs are a valuable 20 Ibid. 21 Interview with an official at the Swedish Embassy in 18 Interview with an official at the FOSM office in BiH. Macedonia. 22 Interview with an official at the EUD office in BiH. 19 Interview with officials at the EUD office in 23 Interview with an official at the Swedish Embassy in Macedonia. BiH. 18 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans the establishment of a national coordination develop income generating activities. The body for the implementation of IPA and the UK embassy draws on private companies or development of sectoral strategies by the CSOs to implement these activities. Another Bosnian administration. typical example of post-conflict reconstruction is the ‘Reconnecting Mitrovica’ programme Bilateral donors have also taken measures in developed by the Kosovo Foundation for response to the precarious political situation in Open Society (KFOS). This is one of the key BiH. The UK embassy has recently reintroduced programmes in KFOS’s forthcoming strategy. a programme focusing on strengthening civil According to Luan , the Foundation’s society as it was considered that there is Executive Director, the objective of this insufficient dialogue between political elites initiative is to change the political and social and the public.24 This initiative followed the climate in Northern Kosovo and to promote visit of UK Foreign Secretary, William Hague, democratization through the expansion of to BiH and the realization that the political civil society.27 This programme will be carried process was ‘stuck’. The representatives of out in cooperation with the EU which will the UK embassy suggested that there is a substantially invest in the development of civil trend among CSOs to move from advocacy to society in North Kosovo in the coming years. service-delivery, which they seek to revert. Rather than using CSOs for service-delivery, they seek to increase the capacity of CSOs to lobby and advocate on various issues. In a similar vein, the Norwegian embassy has refocused its assistance to civil society 2. Modalities on rights-based advocacy CSOs in order to promote bottom-up social change. According of Civil Society to a representative from the Norwegian Assistance Embassy, this is complementary to the assistance provided to state institutions as a 2.1. Typology of Civil Society ‘functioning democracy also needs to have an Assistance equally well functioning civil society sector’.25 The modalities of donor assistance to civil society constituted a very important part of this KOSOVO research. Although this may seem as a merely While the overriding priority of most donors technical issue, it is only through the analysis in Kosovo is to build good governance and of how assistance is channelled to CSOs that accountability, some donors are still actively we can understand the relationship between involved in post-conflict reconstruction. donors and civil society. The way in which civil For instance, 70-80 per cent of the UK’s society assistance is delivered determines the Conflict Prevention Programme in Kosovo is level of ownership that local actors have in the directed towards minorities.26 Together with development and implementation of projects, the EU, the UK embassy provides financial and the modus operandi of most CSOs. This support for the return of refugees. This is section provides an overview of the most a very expensive programme as it involves common approaches to civil society assistance building houses and helping returnees to in the Western Balkans and an analysis

24 Interview with officials at the UK Embassy in BiH. of donors’ rationale for resorting to these 25 Interview with an official at the Norwegian Embassy mechanisms or avoiding them. in BiH. 27 Interview with Luan Shllaku, Executive Director of the 26 Interview with an official at the UK Embassy in KFOS in Kosovo. Kosovo. Balkan Civic Practices # 11 19

Project grant-making Donors have a preference for project grant- making because this allows them to provide Project grant-making is the most widespread funding to a broad range of CSOs. This is seen modality of assistance to civil society. It as having a bigger impact than providing long- consists in donors issuing grants to CSOs for term funding to a limited number of CSOs. short to medium-term projects (usually up This rationale is advanced by Svetlana Ðukić, to 2 years). These grants are generally issued the Civil Society Task Manager at the EUD in through Calls for Proposals (CfP): donors Belgrade, in the following terms: identify priorities and objectives they want to see achieved and CSOs apply with projects that We now have projects for up to 18 seek to attain these objectives. The methods of months. Our resources are limited to granting vary considerably between donors in 100,000 euros. I do not see the point of an terms of procedure and in terms of the level of extension of the period of implementation CSO ownership in the development of projects. of the projects to 48 months if you have For example, while some donors have rolling limited resources. So, we have €2m calls throughout the year, others have set per year for the whole of Serbia. Which deadlines for application. means that, on average, 20 organizations The level of cooperation between donors and can get funding. Another method would CSOs in the development of projects varies be to help five organizations, and no one from case to case. Some donors issue ‘blind else, so that they have their operating calls’ for which the priorities and criteria are costs and institutional costs covered entirely defined by the donors. In this case, for, let’s say, the next 4 years. And this CSOs apply with fully developed projects that is now a question of strategic choice – fit into these pre-defined priorities. Others what is better? So we have opted for this cooperate with, or provide assistance to, mechanism of giving up to 18 months CSOs in the development of projects. This for specific project activities within the usually takes place either through informal scope of the resources that are available communication between donors and CSOs to us. We do not provide €300-400,000 before a formal application for funding has grants so that they could have long been made or through donor assistance in term [support]. And I do not know what the development of those projects which have would be the benefit of giving long-term been shortlisted. In some cases, donors send [assistance]. (...) I essentially do not see a request for application from a closed list what this would make better for civil of CSOs. For example, KFOS usually makes society. I mean, I would love to hear it 30 restricted calls for proposals.28 It first invites a because I often hear it. selection of CSOs to participate in workshops Another reason for the popularity of project- on specific issues. During these workshops, grant making is that this mode of assistance CSO representatives from the region are invited gives donors a lot of flexibility in terms of to present examples of successful projects. defining priorities and substantial control in KFOS then hires coaches to help CSOs develop the implementation of projects. There is a their projects before opening a formal CfP. The perception among donors that it is much easier Dutch embassy in Albania also resorts to this to carry out monitoring and evaluation for procedure because their capacities are not high projects than to assess to what extent CSOs and they prefer to work with stable CSOs.29 have fulfilled their annual plans (see below).

28 Ibid. 29 Interview with an official at the Dutch Embassy in 30 Interview with Svetlana Ðukić, Task Manager for Civil Albania. Society at the EUD office in Serbia. 20 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans

Besides, project grant-making allows donors project grants. The institutional grants cover 50 to fund short-term initiatives tackling specific per cent of the recipient CSO’s annual budget issues. Many donors consider that this is a key for a three-year perspective. The renewal of the dimension of CSO activities, which is why even support each year is conditioned upon the CSO those donors that prioritise other modalities implementing its annual programme.31 of assistance often include a project grant- It is important to emphasise that those donors making dimension in their programmes. who provide institutional grants also provide Nevertheless, many donors would concede project grants because some CSO activities that this form of assistance has led to the are time-limited and specific to a certain development of ‘donor-driven’ civil society (see context. Luan Shllaku from KFOS argues that Chapter 3: Donor Views on Civil Society). Since it is unprofessional to pre-define the amount most of the time CSOs have little ownership of institutional versus project funding.32 In his in the definition of priorities, they end up as view, the point is to use both instruments to implementing agencies pursuing donors’ reach some goals. Visare Gorani from agendas. As a result, CSOs are devoid of their the SIDA office in Kosovo also considers substance and they are cut off from their that donors should resort to both project- constituents. For these reasons, some donors and institutional grants because these two have resorted to institutional support for CSOs. instruments serve different purposes. In her view, while institutional grants allow CSOs to Institutional grant-making get some liberty and stability, project grants Institutional grants consist in providing are necessary for supporting ad hoc, goal- 33 CSOs with multi-year budget support for the oriented initiatives. implementation of their long-term strategic The main rationale for supporting CSOs plans and objectives. Instead of applying with institutional grants is that this allows for funding with projects that seek to meet organisations to develop and implement priorities set by donors, CSOs get financial their own ideas and projects instead of being assistance on the basis of their annual plans. donor-driven. A SIDA official in BiH stated In principle, donors select beneficiaries on the that the main rationale for core funding is basis of whether they support an organisation’s that ‘it allows an organisation to be true to vision and mission. CSOs thus have full its own mission and mandate’. Supposedly, ownership in the identification of priorities and this type of assistance allows CSOs address the implementation of projects. the needs of their communities and establish Very few donors provide this type of assistance strong links with their constituencies. The in the Western Balkans. This is exclusively SCO representatives in Macedonia stated that done by the Swiss Cooperation Offices in they opted for this type of support because Macedonia and Kosovo, SIDA in Kosovo, and they ‘would like to see civil society, all NGOs, the Norwegian Embassy in Belgrade which working for their constituencies; that [CSOs] covers Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia. have a basis rooted in Macedonia and work for The SCO office in Macedonia highlighted the citizens – to work for the citizens and not 34 institutional support as their main approach mainly work for the donors. This is the ideal’. to civil society assistance. In the first phase of 31 Interview with officials at the SCO office in Macedonia. the project Civica Mobilitas, which is one of the 32 Interview with Luan Shllaku, Executive Director of the biggest civil society programmes in Macedonia, KFOS in Kosovo. 33 Interview with Visare Gorani Gashi, Programme two-thirds of the grants disbursed by the SCO Officer for Development Cooperation at the Embassy were institutional grants and one-third were of Sweden in Kosovo. 34 Interview with officials at the SCO office in Macedonia. Balkan Civic Practices # 11 21

Besides giving ownership to CSOs, institutional commemorations, and that’s it. However, grants also give them more long-term if the money was redirected to provide security, which allows organisations to have professional training for war disabled more creativity in their work. The Norwegian or demobilised, unemployed, former embassy in Belgrade opted for this type of soldiers, this would create the conditions support because it allows CSOs to work for their employment. For example, you on long-term goals. According to Roger have a hundred demobilized combatants, Jorgensen, ‘the energy of reaching those all of whom are unemployed. Out of goals can be reduced by overly focusing on this money, you take 10 of them and project activities in a short term’.35 The SCO in provide them with training and perhaps Macedonia also opted for institutional support even some equipment that they need, in order to stimulate more creativity and give for example, for greenhouse vegetable organisations a bit of security. They are aware production. Those 10 [veterans] that with project funding, CSOs spend most of generate their own income, they cease their time applying for projects and reporting, to be unemployed, they are no longer a which leaves them with little space for quality problem. You have this problem of 100 work. Institutional funding is thus deemed to reduced by 10. This is an efficient use of reduce transaction costs, it gives CSOs much resources. But to give them operating grants only to exist, that is not very more time so that they could effectively use the efficient nor, let’s say, desirable at the grants.36 present time when there is not enough There is, nonetheless, a lot of reluctance to money.37 giving institutional funding among donors in Some donors consider that the time of the Western Balkans. The typical argument institutional funding has passed. This view was against this type of assistance is that it prevalent among Open Society Foundation leads to inertia, inefficiency and waste of representatives who consider that institutional funds. This conviction is based on the view grants essentially serve for the creation and that institutional funding allocated by the broadening of CSOs. Luan Shllaku thus argues state authorities has led to the emergence that there is no point in giving grants for the and maintenance of organisations that are mushrooming of CSOs in 2014. Instead, he completely inactive or inefficient. According considers that it is now time to identify what to Džemal Hodžić, Programme Manager at needs to be changed in society and support the EUD in Sarajevo, organisations should not those organisations which can do the job.38 be funded just to exist. In his view, it is much According to Jadranka Jelinčić from FOS, a more efficient to fund targeted projects that donor’s tendency to resort to institutional will deliver tangible results: grant-making depends on the ability of Here’s a trivial example: there are CSOs to elaborate long-term strategies and often wartime associations in each development plans. In her view, many CSOs municipality, and not one but five. They lack this ability because they are dependent all receive grants from the municipal on donors who are not willing to align their budget. It is mostly for offices, phone, priorities with those of civil society.39 Many personal assistants, etc... There are no donors also consider that institutional grants project activities and, if there are any, 37 Interview with Džemal Hodžić, Programme Manager these are some celebrations, some at the EUD in BiH. 38 Interview with Luan Shllaku, Executive Director of the 35 Interview with officials at the Norwegian Embassy in KFOS in Kosovo. Serbia. 39 Interview with Jadranka Jelinčić, Director of the FOS 36 Interview with officials at the SCO office in Macedonia. in Serbia. 22 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans make CSOs even more donor-dependent than partner organisations from Sweden and other project-grants and that this type of assistance countries. The same applies to USAID with would make it very difficult for them to monitor the exception of BiH where USAID’s office has and evaluate the work of CSOs. been using local partners since 2001. Some donors have channelled only parts of their In spite of these reservations, an programmes through implementing partners. increasing number of donors is considering For instance, the EU’s Technical Assistance to introducing institutional grant-making in CSOs (TACSO) project is being implemented by their programmes. There are indeed some the Swedish consultancy SIPU International. indications that the EU could resort to this Bilateral donors have extensively resorted to type of assistance.40 According to the EUD international organisations such as UNDP and officials in Montenegro, the EU rules allow for OSCE for implementing their programmes. institutional funding, but the EUD has chosen These agencies are competing for donor not do so because this ‘has simply not been funding with local CSOs because their own identified in the needs of the overall assistance budgets are shrinking. In some countries, Open package for this country’.41 SIDA is also Society Foundations also act as implementing considering introducing institutional grant- partners for other donors in addition to being making as a tool for supporting civil society grant-giving foundations. in its new regional strategy. According to a SIDA official in BiH, core funding as a model Donors primarily resorted to this type of of civil society assistance is quite common in assistance because they considered that local African countries. However, this is not the case CSOs did not have the capacity to absorb in the Balkans because ‘there are not many and administer funding. USAID resorted donors here who have sort of a development to American organisations because they perspective’.42 were familiar with USAID procedures, which substantially reduced their transaction costs. Civil society assistance through SIDA’s rationale for resorting to Swedish implementing partners implementing partners in BiH and Kosovo This type of assistance, which is progressively was that there were few CSOs with developed being phased out in the WB, involves capacities right after the conflict, so this was donors delivering support to CSOs through a mechanism to reach out to very small, not 43 an organisation from their home country, well-established, organisations. SIDA officials an international organisation or a private consider that the situation is still ‘quite fragile’ consultancy. These implementing partners in Kosovo in terms of CSOs that would be able usually have long-standing partnerships with to absorb the assistance according to the rules 44 local CSOs. The common procedure for the and regulations of Sweden. allocation of funding is that implementing Another important argument in favour of partners develop projects in cooperation with this type of assistance is that it promotes the local CSOs before submitting their applications transfer of technical capacities, knowledge, to donors. experience and organizational thinking from SIDA has thus implemented all its civil society well-established Western organisations programmes in the Western Balkans through to local CSOs. The continuous relationship between implementing organisations and 40 Interview with Resident Advisor at the TACSO offices local CSOs facilitates the development of in Serbia and Albania. 41 Interview with officials at the EUD office in knowledge and expertise which allows them Montenegro. 43 Ibid. 42 Interview with an official at the Embassy of Sweden in 44 Interview with an official at the SIDA office in Kosovo. BiH. Balkan Civic Practices # 11 23 to offer innovative solutions. In Kosovo, beneficiaries and the possibility to include Swedish organisations contributed to the new partners and new initiatives in the building of local capacities, especially for programmes. Most implementing agencies women organisations which play a particularly have their pool of partner organisations which important role there. Visare Gorani Gashi limits the possibility for new organisations argues that channelling assistance through to benefit from assistance. In addition, this implementing partners was a win-win situation mode of assistance limits the ownership and because these are organisations that have developmental potential of local CSOs. Once credibility both in technical terms and in terms the capacities of local organisations are built- of knowing the context which allowed them up, their opportunities for further development to support the development of local CSOs’ are limited because they tend to stay ‘below capacities.45 the radar’ owing to the preponderance of implementing partners. As a result, the In some cases, donors channel their support fact that donors resort to implementing through implementing partners because they partners occasionally creates tensions within consider that it is politically too sensitive to do civil society. As one official from the Open it via CSOs. A representative from the Dutch Society Foundation for Albania (OSFA) noted, Embassy in Macedonia thus stated that they ‘sometimes we see that OSCE and UNDP is resort to implementing partners because it is getting funding from the EU and this really sometimes ‘politically too sensitive to channel creates tension within civil society and those it through the civil society, especially because organisations that strive to survive in this civil society is very much aligned with the environment’.48 Last but not least, donors are political parties’.46 The Embassy is thus funding increasingly reluctant to draw on implementing a Dutch-Belgian consultancy in order to advise partners because this is very costly. the committee which has been established in order to overcome the political crisis in The pace at which this modality of assistance parliament. There are also some instances is being phased out varies between donors where donors resort to implementing agencies and countries. As noted above, USAID in in order to avert corruption. In Albania, the BiH has been implementing its civil society EU’s service contract for supporting children’s programmes through local partners since rights was given to UNICEF which is in charge 2001. The local USAID office resorted to local of the grant management in order to reduce organisations whenever there was capacity the risk of misuse of funds.47 Besides being at the local level because they believe that more reliable, donors generally consider local partners have a higher stake in projects that international implementing partners than foreign organisations. USAID offices provide better quality of service than local in the Western Balkans had the option of organisations. implementing their programmes through local organisations as long as they demonstrated In spite of this, most donors have decided to that these organisations have the capacity to phase out this type of assistance for several implement those activities.49 Nevertheless, reasons. First of all, the long-standing USAID’s offices in the remaining Western cooperation between implementing partners Balkans countries have only recently started and selected CSOs limits the number of to resort to local implementers as part of the global USAID Forward reform. SIDA is also 45 Ibid. 46 Interview with an official at the Dutch Embassy in gradually phasing out the use of Swedish Macedonia. 47 Interview with Resident Advisor at the TACSO office in 48 Interview with an official at the OSFA office in Albania. Albania, 49 Interview with an official at the USAID office in BiH. 24 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans partner organisations, although at different of the overall shift in donor agenda discussed speed in different countries. SIDA gives above. In line with this, many donors have substantial importance to exit strategies in moved on from giving grants for capacity- this process. The phasing out is gradual so building to CSOs to using CSOs for the that local organisations would not be left on implementation of specific activities. Donors their own without achieving a certain stage of engaging with CSOs in such a way believe maturity. According to the SIDA representative that civil society should recognise donors as in Kosovo, this involves more focus on capacity potential partners which can influence policy- building for local CSOs, especially in terms of making rather than seeing them as a source assisting organisations in identifying priorities of funding. For example, the OSCE provides and needs, and strengths and weaknesses.50 CSOs in Kosovo with privileged access to public institutions by involving them in CSOs as implementing partners activities focused on building the capacity of This is a widespread form of indirect support the Assembly. for CSOs through their engagement in the While this type of assistance contributes to design or implementation of specific activities asserting civil society as a legitimate and involving different stakeholders. It involves fully-fledged partner in policy processes, either commissioning CSOs to carry out there is no financial assistance attached to it. specific tasks (research, training, monitoring, The CSOs involved in this type of cooperation service delivery, advice, coordination, etc...) or with donors usually get funding from some consulting organisations in the implementation other sources. Many donors prefer to support of projects with other actors. CSOs in a non-financial way in order to avoid There are important variations in the way financial dependency. The problem with this donors engage with CSOs as implementing approach is that it assumes that civil society partners. For the implementation of specific is fully developed, independent and financially projects or tasks, CSOs are usually selected sustainable. This is unfortunately still not the through tenders in which they compete with case in the Western Balkans and, as the next public or private bodies. In this case, the section will show, any donors are aware of it. ownership is entirely in the hand of the donors, CSOs have little or no say in the identification of priorities and the development of projects. However, in some cases, projects are allocated 3. Donor Views without tenders or CfP. For instance, the ERSTE Foundation develops projects in-house on Civil Society and enters into partnerships with CSOs that are deemed most suitable to implement specific 3.1. Common Issues across projects or tasks. the Region

UNICEF in Serbia has established strategic Civil society is donor-driven partnerships with organisations working in the field of child protection. In this case, CSOs are The most common criticism donors across heavily involved both in the design and in the the region directed at civil society is that implementation of projects. many CSOs are donor-driven. Accordingly, many organisations in the region are ‘empty This form of engagement with CSOs is shells’ in the sense that they do not have their increasingly popular among donors as a result own agendas but that they are exclusively 50 Interview with an official at the SIDA office in Kosovo. Balkan Civic Practices # 11 25 implementing donors’ programmes. In the tension between the changing priorities of the view of many donors, these organisations do donors and the need of CSOs to specialise in not constitute genuine civil society because a specific field and address the needs of the they are not oriented towards tackling societal community. This is particularly problematic for problems and addressing the needs of their institutionalised CSOs which require funding communities. These are institutionalised to cover their running costs and are therefore organisations which ‘pay a lot of attention to prompted to adapt their activities to the management, administration and reporting priorities of the donors. Jelinčić argues that instead of doing something concrete’.51 this tension between donor priorities and CSO Allegedly, many of these organisations are agendas is one of the main challenges for civil opportunistically formed to implement specific society sustainability.53 Selma Sijerčić from foreign-funded projects and they often cease to USAID in BiH argues that donors have made exist once the projects end. As a result, various CSOs donor-dependent by making them work donors have pointed out that it is sometimes on one-year projects in different fields, which difficult to make a distinction between inhibited the long-term strategic development genuine CSOs and organisations that act as of CSOs and the building of contacts between consultancies. Brigitte Heuel Rolf, the Country CSOs and local constituencies: Director at the GIZ office in BiH, suggested that You have a project for a year, you they would like to work more with civil society, complete it and you are over, you but that it is not easy to find competent and took the money and you are done. reliable partners among CSOs: You did not work on the long-term We are interested to work with civil and on cooperation. It is essential to society but often there are no suitable think strategically. If an organization actors. You don’t find potential works on public procurement, do organisations. Many organisations here not put it in charge of projects for the in Bosnia that call themselves CSOs are protection of human rights. [...] They in the end consulting companies. (...) We then do everything and nothing because are looking for possibilities to increase they have no money, [they] have no other options. They have not oriented our cooperation with civil society; we themselves towards local sources of are interested to work with them. It’s funding. They forgot the citizens, [they not easy to find competent and reliable forgot] to include the citizens. We now partners. You have organisations where have a problem with civil society.54 in the beginning you think that it looks like a CSO but in the end it often boils Note that donors generally consider that there down, because maybe this is also a is a ‘two-track’ civil society in the region. It is consequence of funding difficulties, generally believed that there are, on the one that they are finally rather consulting hand, the established and professionalised companies than CSOs.52 organisations that are somewhere in between activism and the state and, on the other, the Paradoxically, donors are generally aware grass-root organisations which are deemed that their practices have contributed to to be the healthier part of civil society because generating donor-driven civil society. Jadranka they are genuinely oriented towards their Jelinčić thus argues that there is an inherent communities. Therefore, this criticism applies

51 Interview with an official at the East-West 53 Interview with Jadranka Jelinčić, Director of the FOS Management Institute in Montenegro. office in Serbia. 52 Interview with Brigitte Heuel-Rolf, Country Director 54 Interview with Selma Sijerčić, Project Management at the GIZ Office in BiH. Specialist at USAID in BiH. 26 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans only to the first segment of civil society, a I have actually, and I hope they will do segment which is nonetheless the biggest it, coached my colleagues in the new recipient of donor funding. public participation actions to look to these organizations because those Civil society lacks legitimacy are sustainable organizations, those The second most common criticism of civil are organizations that actually are the society among donors is that it lacks legitimacy grassroots; many of them are not very because it is disconnected from the local interested in participating in public life population. This criticism is closely related as organizations [...] and they are the to the one discussed above. Civil society’s grassroots so they would have something disengagement from local communities is seen to contribute maybe. Maybe it’s more as a consequence of the professionalization sustainable in the future to work with and institutionalization of many organizations, these organizations and try to bring them and them being more oriented towards donors closer to institutions and maybe not fund than towards the needs of the citizenry. A from a donor perspective. Donors fund representative from the UK Embassy in think-tanks that may do good work but Belgrade thus stated that CSOs have become you may see staff circulating from one ‘professional in relation to donors and in field to the other for the past ten years terms of fundraising and unprofessional in and once the donor money is gone they terms of identifying the needs of the citizens, will probably not be sustainable anymore mobilising their support and transforming their because the planned government funding hardships in political messages addressed to will not be sufficient to sustain the activity the authorities’.55 of these organizations at the current level.56 Donors see the lack of representativeness as a major issue for civil society. In their view, In some cases, donors are increasingly CSOs have to be accountable to someone if re-directing their support to ad-hoc civic they want to represent the public interest. activism. Vladimir Milchin, the Executive This is currently not the case because few Director of FOSM, argues that there is CSOs in the region are membership-based increased civic engagement through informal organisations. Some donors expressed doubts groups in Macedonia as a result of a general about the ability of foreign-funded CSOs to dissatisfaction with ‘traditional civil society’.57 enact social change because they are alien According to Milchin, ‘traditional civil society’ to ‘ordinary people’. They consider that civil refers to the institutionalised, bureaucratised society needs to be grafted upon local culture organisations which know how to write and local ways of doing things in order to make projects for the EU and the Americans, but a difference on the ground. Besides reducing never engage in politically-sensitive issues, the capability of CSOs to carry out their while ‘informal groups’ are ad hoc coalitions mission, donors see the lack of constituency that mobilise on specific issues. FOSM is as a major impediment to the sustainability of planning to increase funding for ad hoc/ organisations. As a result, some donors are informal groups as they consider that their increasingly turning to membership-based numbers will increase in the future. Other organisations which they see as being more donors are funding programmes aimed at sustainable. The OSCE in Kosovo has chosen to focus on this type of organisations: 56 Interview with an official at the OSCE Mission in Kosovo. 55 Interview with an official at the UK Embassy in 57 Interview with Vladimir Milchin, Executive Director at Serbia. the FOS office in Macedonia. Balkan Civic Practices # 11 27 developing links between CSOs and their those organisations that are opposed to the constituencies. The next phase of the SCO’s government and cannot or do not want to get ‘Civicas Mobilitas’ project in Macedonia will access to government funding, and those that focus on constituency building. It is a big are close to the government and get state project – CHF 8 mil (approx. EUR 6.63 mil) for funding without being accountable for what 4 years – which will be implemented by an they are doing with these funds. Bakovska Danish consultancy (NIRAS) and a local CSO expressed her deep disappointment with (MCIC). According to the SCO representatives, civil society because it has not been able to this is an attempt to have a rooted civil society ‘outsmart the government’: and to make a stronger connection with I think that, to put it bluntly, they haven’t citizens and the social and political reality.58 been able to outsmart the government Civil society is apathetic or politically and I think [that this] was kind of an eye imprudent opener for many people, like myself, who supported civil society for a long Some donors have criticised civil society for time and thought that the capacities of having failed to adapt and respond to changing the civil society were built – they were political circumstances. The situation varies not, apparently. A lot of funds, efforts, between countries. In Serbia, some donors etc. that was used to build the capacities consider that civil society is going through a of the civil sector, practically did not give crisis of identity because it does not know how yield or effect. The people who were to position itself towards the new authorities. really good in the civil society, when While civil society was an opponent to the the money wasn’t there anymore, they Milosevic regime in the nineties and an active shifted to different areas of work. And supporter of the democratisation process in what has remained, apparently, does not the 2000s, it finds itself in a precarious position have sufficient political sense to make now that the political elites from the nineties results [out of what] they are doing.60 have come back to power. Several donors There is a similar pattern in Albania, where have thus noted that civil society is disoriented several donors have pointed out that many because the situation is no longer ‘black or CSOs are politically affiliated. In BiH, there white’. Some donors pointed out that political is a general impression that civil society is elites in Serbia are not interested in the concept apathetic and unresponsive to the political of public dialogue with civil society because crisis. The representatives of the UK embassy they consider that democracy is a relationship consider there is no interest on the part of between the authorities and the citizenry that CSOs to change the system. They deplored functions exclusively through elections.59 The that ‘we’ve got lame-duck CSOs which are not precarious situation in which civil society finds advocating the change we need’. In their view, itself prevents it from asserting itself and being CSOs should lobby for the interests of the in position to pressure the government. citizens, which is not happening at the moment On the other hand, in Macedonia, some donors as ‘there is no public reaction to political have deplored the fact that civil society has events’.61 become trapped in daily politics. Beti Bakovska from the Dutch embassy suggested that there is a huge divide in Macedonia between 60 Interview with Beti Bakovska, Advisor on Good 58 Interview with officials at the SCO office in Macedonia. Governance and Culture at the Dutch Embassy in 59 Interview with an official at the UK Embassy in Macedonia. Serbia. 61 Interview with officials at the UK Embassy in BiH. 28 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans

Other issues media (see above). Montenegro is a notable exception to this. Several donors have pointed Some donors have highlighted the lack of out that there is a very good collaboration expertise in specific areas as one of the most between CSOs and media in Montenegro. As a pressing issues for civil society in the region. result, CSOs have a high degree of visibility and This lack of expertise within civil society is they are recognised as an important factor in particularly visible in the field of law and society. various aspects of EU integration. This is due to the fact that most of the capacity building and trainings over the past decade have had 3.2. Country-Specific Issues a very general focus, dealing with generic Donor views on civil society vary considerably issues such as project management, strategic across the region. On the one hand, civil society planning, advocacy, etc. In relation to this, is generally considered to be ‘very developed’ various donors have criticised the EU’s TACSO in Serbia and Montenegro. On the other hand, programme for providing generic trainings in civil society is overall considered to be weak writing projects, strategic planning or public and fragile in Albania and Macedonia, and to advocacy whereas what is really needed are some extent in BiH and Kosovo. thematic trainings that would increase the In both Serbia and Montenegro, civil society expertise of organisations in their fields of is deemed to play a key role in monitoring activity. Some donors argue that, over the the government and holding state institutions past decade, the increase in expertise in EU accountable. Jadranka Jelinčić from FOS integration and human rights within the public thus argues that, although the perceived level administration has been accompanied by a of corruption in Serbia is very high, there is decrease in expertise within civil society.62 a civil society that has the capacity to call For instance, the representative of the UK for accountability and hold the government embassy in Macedonia suggested that donors responsible.65 Donors have particularly praised have worked for years on the development the role of CSOs in addressing corruption in of civil society without working on the Montenegro. Some have suggested that civil expertise of CSOs, apart in a few areas such as society there plays such an important role in environment or human rights.63 monitoring and pressuring the government Another issue that came up in the interviews that it has partly taken over the role of the is the lack of CSO visibility. This is particularly judiciary. Montenegrin CSOs have indeed problematic in Serbia, where civil society instigated several investigations that have led inherited a negative image from the nineties to high-profile arrests. Several donors have when the Milošević regime portrayed CSOs as suggested that there is a good cooperation foreign henchmen. Since 2000, the situation between CSOs and media in Montenegro, has not improved much because there is little which substantially contributed to CSO visibility cooperation between CSOs and the media.64 and prominence in society.66 The lack of access to media is also a major In Albania, there is a common view that CSOs issue in Macedonia, where several donors have still lack capacity and that they are overly reintroduced media programmes in response dependent on donor funding which is shrinking. to the government crackdown on independent An OSFA representative described civil society 62 Interview with an official at the East-West Management Institute in Montenegro. 63 Interview with an official at the UK Embassy in 65 Interview with Jadranka Jelinčić, Director of the FOS Macedonia. in Serbia. 64 Interviews with officials at the USAID and BTD offices 66 Interview with an official at the East-West in Serbia. Management Institute in Montenegro. Balkan Civic Practices # 11 29 in Albania as ‘a tree with the roots in the air’.67 assistance is alleged to have produced an over- According to this view, donors put a lot of populated but under-empowered civil society money to build CSO capacities and increase which has been brought close to extinction CSO’s human resources between 1993 and due to the withdrawal of donors. This view 2003. However, these resources were suddenly is shared by the FOSM representatives who redirected to the government and this ‘has stated that civil society in Macedonia is falling been happening again and again’. Several apart in view of the fact that the official number donors have pointed out that CSOs are often of organisations has fallen from 11,000 to politically affiliated and some have suggested 3,500, out of which 10 per cent are active and that they are very often a one-man show and able to get funding.71 that they are very much business-oriented. In BiH, several donors have pointed out Others gave a more positive assessment. that, while many CSOs see themselves as The representative from the Dutch embassy important and influential, civil society is suggested that Albanian civil society is quite actually quite weak. In their view, CSOs lack colourful: there are some organisations which capacity and they have a low impact and low donors consider to be reliable in terms of levels of accountability. Most donors attribute implementation of projects and management this state of affairs to the fact that CSOs of funds and there is another ‘grey area’ of new are overwhelmingly donor-driven. A SCO organizations popping in and organizations representative suggested that Bosnian civil surviving only on projects.68 The USAID officials society is not ‘ripe’ because most organisations suggested that, while civil society in Albania have emerged in response to the availability is less developed than in other countries, it is of foreign funding rather than in response to growing, developing and ‘more advanced than local needs.72 As a result, these organisations a lot of people think’.69 lack a broader view on the role of civil society In Macedonia, civil society is heavily affected in societal development. Some donors have by the political situation. Several donors have pointed out BiH’s political context as an pointed out that the state-civil society relations impediment to civil society development. are very tense since the change of government According to a USAID representative, civil in 2006. Accordingly, there is no willingness society lacks influence because the authorities on the part of the executive to cooperate with in BiH do not even know what civil society is civil society and those organisations that are – they perceive civil society as nothing more criticizing the government are systematically than foreign-funded CSOs that can bring some exposed to attacks via the media. This is also project money.73 the case for some donors, such as FOSM Although donors recognise that civil society which has taken a more politically engaged has achieved significant progress in Kosovo stance in their work. Some donors are critical over the past 15 years, there is a common view of civil society for having become trapped that it is overwhelmingly donor-driven and that in daily politics. A representative from the it is still at an early stage of development. Luan Dutch embassy suggested that CSOs ‘have Shllaku from KFOS noted that, after 99’, CSOs not managed to be above what is happening mushroomed in response to the availability in society, but have rather been a reflection of funding and lack of employment. Now, the of what is happening in society’.70 Donor Macedonia. 67 Interview with an official at the OSFA office in Albania. 71 Interview with officials at the FOSM office in 68 Interview with an official at the Dutch Embassy in Macedonia. Albania. 72 Interview with officials at the Swiss Cooperation 69 Interview with officials at the USAID office in Albania. Office in BiH. 70 Interview with an official at the Dutch Embassy in 73 Interview with an official at the USAID office in BiH. 30 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans availability of funding has decreased, there is Donors generally consider that the number ‘few money for many ideas’.74 There is also of CSOs is bound to shrink because civil less activism as the state has taken over many society has been inflated by the availability of of the tasks performed by civil society earlier. foreign funding. There is a common view that Several donors have highlighted organisational CSOs need to professionalise and specialise issues and the lack of strategic orientation as themselves in specific sectors in order to major challenges to civil society development become sustainable. In addition, donors in Kosovo. The SIDA official thus stated that consider that CSOs need to become more few organisations in Kosovo have built their visible by publicising their work and involving profile in terms of scope of intervention and the community so that people know what they that many are struggling with organizational are giving money for. Generally, donors see management and internal democracy.75 An the solution to the financial sustainability of official from the UK embassy suggested that civil society in the diversification of sources of many CSOs ‘are still wandering’ but that these funding through: CSOs have nonetheless played an important Increased access to state funding; role and that donors ‘could not have done their The development of philanthropy; jobs without them’.76 CSOs developing profitable activities; CSOs developing links with the community 3.3. Civil Society Sustainability and becoming membership-based While they are aware that civil society is organisations; dependent on donor funding, donors are The development of CSO networks at the divided on the question of civil society local, national and regional level. sustainability. Some donors consider that the The question of state funding is key because, question of CSO sustainability is inadequate in most countries, the state is the primary when the lifecycle of civil society projects source of funding for civil society. For example, lasts one or two years. In this context, it is in Serbia, state funding for civil society in impossible to talk about long term impact, 2012 was about EUR 67 mil, which is much let alone sustainability. Others consider that more than the totality of donor funding for the question of financial sustainability is civil society.78 However, this figure includes misplaced: CSOs are obsessed with how they funding for political parties, sports clubs, are going to fund themselves instead of looking churches, etc. Very little funding actually goes at how to develop links with the community to CSOs. In addition, state funding is allocated and thus become genuinely sustainable. For in a non-transparent manner: the current example, Vladimir Milchin from FOSM opposes Serbian regulations allow the administration the very idea of civil society sustainability to allocate funding without opening a CfP or because he considers that this leads to the a tender. The situation is similar in the other institutionalisation/bureaucratisation of civil Western Balkan countries. In BiH, state funding society. In his view, sustainability should be for CSOs amounts to approximately EUR 70 about whether an organisation is achieving its mil per year, half of which is disbursed by the mission, not about whether it is managing to municipalities.79 However, 47 per cent of the get funding from year to year as donors usually see it.77 78 ‘Annual Summary Report on Budget Expenditures for the Associations and Other Civil Society 74 Interview with Luan Shllaku, Executive Director of the Organisations in 2012 as Support to Programmatic KFOS office in Kosovo. and Project Activities’, Government of the Republic 75 Interview with an official at the SIDA office in Kosovo. of Serbia, retrieved from http://civilnodrustvo.gov.rs/ 76 Interview with an official at the UK Embassy in media/2012/10/en-mini-zbirni-za-sajt.pdf on 7 May Kosovo. 2014. 77 Interview with Vladimir Milchin, Executive Director at 79 Interview with Džemal Hodžić, Programme Manager the FOSM office in Macedonia. at the EUD in BiH. Balkan Civic Practices # 11 31 beneficiaries are sports organisations, 34 per (Ombudsman, Office for Human Rights, etc.), cent veteran associations, and a lot goes to not so much with core government institutions. religious organisations. According to Džemal The state-civil society relations are deemed to Hodžić from the EUD in Sarajevo, less than be the most advanced in Montenegro where 2 per cent of the beneficiaries are human CSO participation in policy-making has been rights organisations or CSOs dealing with institutionalised. Montenegro is indeed the only social issues.80 In Montenegro and Kosovo, country where CSOs are formally involved in the levels of state funding for civil society are the negotiations with the EU. substantially lower. The Montenegrin case is Although most donors recognise the need to specific in the sense that a substantial part develop state-civil society relations, few of of the state funding has been suspended them actually pursue this objective in their as a result of the government’s initiative to programmes. The officials from the SCO in centralise the allocation of funds for civil Macedonia stated that, for the moment, they society which was initiated in 2011 but never are focusing on the efficiency and effectiveness completed. This is a major problem for of CSOs, and the sustainability of the results.82 Montenegrin CSOs because most of the donors The question of CSOs’ financial sustainability have withdrawn and the levels of EU funding is left for a later period – the SCO is waiting have remained the same. to see the mechanisms deployed by the EU Donors generally consider that CSO in this respect. The only notable international sustainability should ideally be ensured initiative to reform state funding for civil through the establishment of genuine society is being carried out by the EU and the partnership between government and civil UNDP in BiH through the Reinforcement of society. According to Torgny Svenungsson Local Democracy (LOD) project which seeks from the Swedish Embassy in Belgrade, to promote transparency in local funding for this requires more than just regulating the civil society. The project, which is funded by allocation of state funding to civil society: the EU and implemented by UNDP, focuses on municipalities because they are the biggest So I think, to us, I would say the strategic provider of funding for CSOs in BiH (around 50 thinking on how you would in the long per cent of total state funding).83 The objective run be sustainable as civil society passes is to build the capacities of municipalities to by establishing a functional relation identify priorities in consultation with civil between civil society and government society and allocate funding in an impartial at its different levels, recognizing each and transparent manner. The project also other’s different roles. So it is not creating aims to raise awareness among CSOs that a civil society dependant on the state, but municipalities are potential donors. it is a civil society that is in constructive dialogue with government and is pushing Municipalities applying for participating in the government and is scrutinizing the LOD programme are required to have the government but also supplying established contacts with local CSOs. Those proposals, constructive proposals.81 selected get technical assistance for organising public calls and selecting beneficiaries. This is Donors generally agree that, at the current done according to the LOD methodology which stage, cooperation is most advanced has been developed as a tool for an inclusive between CSOs and independent institutions and transparent allocation of municipal funds

80 Ibid. 82 Interview with officials at the SCO office in Macedonia. 81 Interview with officials at the Swedish Embassy in 83 Interview with Samir Omerefendić, Project Manager Serbia. at the UNDP office in BiH. 32 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans to CSOs in line with the procedures used by the CSOs in BiH will require further actions, EUD. Once the municipality has established including legal measures in order to create a its team and procedures, it launches CfPs distinction between sport clubs and CSOs. In whose priorities are defined in cooperation a separate project, the EUD provides technical with local CSOs. The selected projects are assistance to the government for the creation financed by the EUD and co-financed by the of institutional mechanisms for cooperation municipality. Any CSO from BiH is eligible to with civil society. USAID has a complementary apply, but the project must be implemented project which seeks to assist CSOs in their in the municipality which issued the Call. LOD relationship with the government. However, is thus a form of sub-granting whose primary there has been little progress on establishing objective is to standardise the procedures for state-civil society cooperation mechanisms allocating funding for CSOs at the municipal because there is a lack of political will and level. In the period 2007-2013, the project had understanding on why the government should 3 phases with over 200 projects funded. The consult with civil society. EU has contributed to the funding of these Most obviously, state funding is not the projects with EUR 5 mil, the municipalities with panacea for all CSOs. Donors are generally EUR 500,000. The fourth phase of the project aware that those organisations dealing with started in June 2014. politically sensitive issues, such as human LOD has been recognised as an example rights, watchdog and monitoring organisations of good practice across the region. Samir cannot count on state funding. However, it is Omerefendić, Project Manager for the LOD considered that some of these organisations programme at UNDP, argues that this project will always have access to global funds for has contributed to a greater recognition of human rights organisations such as the OSI’s civil society among state officials. At the global programmes. Some donors have municipal level, state officials regularly emphasised the importance of bigger CSOs enter in cooperation with CSOs, which was helping the smaller ones to get access to EU unimaginable a few years ago: funding and to international CSO networks. The representatives from the EUD in Skopje The understanding of, and approach to, thus stated that it is not only the government working with civil society is changing. that should be in charge of developing civil Municipalities now reserve some society, but that this should also be the task of budgetary funds dedicated to the co- the more mature CSOs.85 They argue that there financing of projects that NGOs receive is a lack of awareness among bigger CSOs in from some other sources. That was not ‘sharing and structuring together’ and that the the case a few years ago. This is a quite EU has sought to promote such practices by serious matter where municipalities requesting the bigger CSOs to include smaller stand behind local NGOs, give them ones as partners in their projects. Donors thus letters of support, want to work with perceive the established CSOs as a key element them as well as situations where for the development and sustainability of civil municipalities tend to monitor how their society in the region. funds are being spent by NGOs, and they expect feedbacks, reports and in general greater involvement.84 In spite of these encouraging developments, resolving the problem of public funding for 85 Interview with officials at the EU Delegation in 84 Ibid. Macedonia. Part II Country Outlook 34 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans

whose budget is EUR 350,000, while the US Embassy administers the Democracy Commission Small Grants Programme with a yearly budget of USD 500,000 (approx. EUR 395,000). Finally, the Open Society Foundation for Albania (OSFA), which is one of the biggest private foundations in the country, has a civil 4. Albania society programme whose budget is around 4.1. Levels of Donor Support USD 150,000 (approx. EUR 118,000) per year. Several donors suggested that their budgets Albania has a relatively limited number of have been steadily decreasing over the donors supporting civil society. Overall, the past years. For example, the interviewee EU is the most important donor with a yearly from USAID said that the amounts have budget of around EUR 93.2 mil out of which been reduced by around two-thirds, from EUR 1.5 mil is earmarked for the Civil Society approximately USD 30 mil (approx. EUR Facility (CSF). The CSF’s budget could be 23.7 mil) in 2002, to USD 10 mil (approx. increased to EUR 2 or 2.5 mil in the future, EUR 7.9 mil) just over a decade later.86 More and Albanian CSOs also could benefit from the worryingly, there is evidence of ‘donor flight’ EIDHR and CBC programmes (see section 4.6). from Albania. According to the interviewee The second most important donor is Germany from the SIDA office in Tirana, ‘It is not the with EUR 31.5 mil allocated for the period same environment for donors as it used to be 2012-2014. However, most of the German 5-6 years ago, and this is particularly evident aid consists in loans and does not directly in the civil society donor group, I would say, benefit civil society. Switzerland is also heavily but this is only my perception’. Furthermore, involved in Albania in terms of development ‘there are no major donors of that group, the cooperation. The Swiss Cooperation Office international organizations such as the OSCE, (SCO) in Albania has a budget of around CHF UNDP, the Swiss are not providing the same 88 mil (approx. EUR 73 mil) for 4 years. Civil support as they used to provide before so, society is included in the democratisation and apart from the EUD, it’s not the usual dialogue local governance programme whose budget partners that we used to have to discuss is CHF 25 mil (approx. EUR 20.7 mil) and the about support to civil society, but that’s my health programme with a budget amounting impression’.87 to CHF 10 mil (EUR 8.3 mil). One of the biggest supporters of civil society in Albania is the Embassy of Sweden, which implements 4.2. Motives for Donor Presence civil society assistance through Swedish One of the main donor priorities in Albania organisations. These organisations are Kvinna is the rule of law, with the Dutch Embassy till Kvinna, the Olof Palme Centre and Civil (after 2011)88, OSFA89, and USAID targeting Rights Defenders and their respective budgets this area. The other issue that was specifically are SEK 14, 15 and 16 million (approx. EUR prioritised by the respondents was good 1.5 mil, EUR 1.6 mil, EUR 1.7 mil) for three governance, which was identified by OSFA90, years. SIDA also supports environmental CSOs 86 Interview with officials at USAID office in Albania. through the Regional Environmental Centre 87 Interview with officials at SIDA office in Albania. (REC) with SEK15 mil (approx. EUR 1.6 mil) 88 Interview with an official at the Dutch Embassy in for three years. As in other WB countries, the Albania. 89 Interview with an official at the Open Society Dutch Embassy runs the MATRA programme Foundation for Albania. 90 Interview with an official at the Open Society Balkan Civic Practices # 11 35

SDC91 and USAID.92 Most importantly, however, that the country joined the EU a decade ago, in international donors have highlighted that 2004. However, the respondent also noted that, the over-arching long-term objective is that levels of assistance would not increase due of European integration, which was explicitly to the poor absorption capacities of Albanian referred to by the interviewees from OSFA, organisations.96 SDC, and USAID. An official from the USAID stated that their ‘number one goal is to 4.4. Modalities of Aid Planning assist in European integration and that’s and Programming among Donors Albania number one challenge’.93 From the EU perspective, the leading actor in the Most of the international donors active programming of aid is DG Enlargement and, in Albania involve the Government in the according to the interviewee from the EUD planning and programming of their activities. in Tirana, ‘the aim of every euro spent is This prevailing top-down way of creating accession support’.94 strategies is best captured by the interviewee from the German Embassy, which has close 4.3. Plans for the Future cooperation with several Ministries: ‘the idea of financial cooperation is always that a The donors’ plans for the future are shaped by government cooperates with a government so the prospects of Albania’s integration in the we have our yearly government consultations EU. An interviewee from USAID drew on the or government negotiations when we agree examples of the CEE countries that joined the with the democratically elected government EU in 2004 and the SEE countries that joined in of the country on which projects we are 2007 to suggest that there will be more funding going to pursue’.97 For some donors, from the EU as Albania nears accession. The this is done explicitly through a bilateral interviewee reports that the USAID offices agreement between the Albanian and foreign in Bulgaria and in Romania were closed in Governments. This is the case for Swiss98, 2008, the year after they joined the EU. The Swedish99, and American100 donor activities driving force in exiting these countries was in Albania. The identification of World Bank EU accession, and the USAID official in Tirana priorities and projects in the country is extrapolated that this would be the case for approved by an Act of Parliament in Tirana, so Albania as well. However, for USAID, ‘at this the World Bank office has close contacts with time there is no discussion about phasing out the relevant Parliamentary Committees.101 or exit strategies in Albania’.95 This long-term Both donors and the Albanian authorities commitment was also echoed by other donors, have pursued a sectoral approach in such as OSFA. As opposed to the scenario developing assistance strategies. OSFA proposed by USAID, the interviewee from conducts a number of meetings with certain OSFA said that, for them, Albania’s accession in the EU would not involve an immediate exit 96 Interview with an official at the Open Society from the country. The Open Society office in Foundation for Albania. Slovakia thus closed in 2013, despite the fact 97 Interview with an official at the German Embassy in Albania. 98 Interview with an official at the Swiss Cooperation Foundation for Albania. Office in Albania. 91 Interview with an official at the Swiss Cooperation 99 Interview with an official at the SIDA office in Albania. Office in Albania. The 3-4 year country strategies are set with the 92 Interview with an official at USAID office in Albania. Albanian Government. 93 Interview with an official at USAID office in Albania. 100 Interview with an official at the USAID office in 94 Interview with an official at the EU Delegation office in Albania. Albania. 101 Interview with an official at the World Bank office in 95 Interview with an official at USAID office in Albania. Albania. 36 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans policy sections in the Albanian Government. observation that was echoed by USAID.109 USAID and other donors have fostered good SIDA also indicated that another source of relationships with the Albanian Government by information about donor activities can be found sector. For example, there is particularly good on the DSDC website, which, along with the cooperation between the USAID office and the Albanian Donor Technical Secretariat (DTS), Albanian Ministry of Justice around issues of has compiled an up-to-date database of donor rule of law102; SIDA has good cooperation on activities in the country.110 relevant initiatives with the tax authorities, Some international donors also engage statistics bureau, and the Ministry for stakeholders at lower levels of government Environment103; and for the EUD, the priorities in the process of aid programming. The Swiss are identified by the Albanian Government with Cooperation Office includes consultations with the EU ‘there to fill in the gaps’.104 local government in this process111, whilst Many respondents mentioned their OSFA has involved municipal authorities involvement in the donor sectoral Working by bringing together local civil society Groups (WGs), which are attended by organisations and city hall officials to form representatives from international donors and ‘local action plans’ to lobby for local funding relevant Ministries, and which is coordinated based on the priorities identified.112 Another by the Albanian Department of Strategy and type of involvement of local government was Donor Coordination (DSDC). The interviewee a form of sub-granting implemented by the from USAID indicated the importance of these Dutch Embassy. In Diber qark (county), the WGs: ‘[they are] taking on a real coordination money was given to the local government role to make sure that government is not only to decide priorities and make a call for informed of what the donors are doing but that proposals.113 On the other hand, on issues of it takes an active part in the conversation’.105 gender, OSFA works with Local Action Groups The Dutch Embassy is involved in the WG (LAGs), which cover more than one local organized by the Ministry for Local Affairs government unit in rural areas and consist to share information and coordinate around of government / civil society / private sector anti-corruption strategies.106 SIDA is active coordination. Oxfam and SNV set up the LAGs in the gender and civil society WGs107, whilst in Albania. the Swiss are the lead donors in the areas Although these are ‘top-down’ modes by which of decentralization, regional development, priorities are identified in aid programmes, and vocational training.108 The interviewee there are also several ‘bottom-up’ ways in from SDC also indicated that there is which international donors involve local significant variation amongst the WGs on the actors. When programming the Civil Society effectiveness of WGs, depending on the lead Facility (CSF), the EU explicitly bypasses the Ministry from the Albanian Government, an Government.114 OSFA identifies the priorities

102 Interview with an official at the USAID office in 109 Interview with an official at the USAID office in Albania. Albania. 103 Interview with an official at the SIDA office in Albania. 110 See: http://dsdc.gov.al/dsdc/Donor_Database_33_2. 104 Interview with an official at the EU Delegation office in php (last accessed: 19 May 2014) Albania. 111 Interview with an official at the Swiss Cooperation 105 Interview with an official at the USAID office in Office in Albania. Albania. 112 Interview with an official at the Open Society 106 Interview with an official at the Dutch Embassy in Foundation for Albania. Albania. 113 Interview with an official at the Dutch Embassy in 107 Interview with an official at the SIDA office in Albania. Albania. 108 Interview with an official at the Swiss Cooperation 114 Interview with an official at the TACSO office in Office in Albania. Albania. Balkan Civic Practices # 11 37 of civil society through formal and informal an Act of Parliament in Switzerland.119 For consultations with local CSOs. The resulting the US Embassy, Washington goes through draft goes to the Executive Board of the the process of technical approval, because Foundation, where it is reviewed, before the they look at the budget lines, though in most programme document is finalized.115 SIDA cases what is approved by the locally-based programming is ultimately decided by the Democracy Commission is approved in Ministry for Foreign Affairs in Stockholm, but Washington.120 USAID priorities are approved according to a SIDA official in Tirana, identifying by US Congress, but crucially, there is flexibility priorities ‘starts with consultations with our to change strategies as needs dictate: [SIDA’s] civil society partners, like what do they ‘It’s a strategy, so it gives us a fair think are the problems, are we [SIDA] doing amount of flexibility to work under, if the right things, what should be done, what are needed, to develop situation changes, their impressions’.116 we have flexibility to design new The prioritization within aid programmes, programmes, to change existing however, is often formulated by actors that programmes so within the strategy… are not based in Albania. As mentioned [We] can have unilateral projects in the above, SIDA assistance is implemented country if there is something that didn’t fit through the sub-granting of three Swedish in the strategy or it wasn’t foreseen’.121 framework organisations, which, in turn have There may be a similar devolution with responsibility for the programming: Palme SIDA, where the programming is currently Center, Kvinna til Kvinna, and the Civil Rights determined more in Sweden than in the field, Defenders. Similarly, the Dutch Embassy but by 2015, they expect to be able to make relies on the Dutch organization SNV, since decisions in local offices, and they will not the organisation has been in the region for 18 need to consult SIDA headquarters, though HQ years and is a ‘guarantee’ that the mentoring approval may be required for big projects.122 programmes at a qark level would go smoothly. According to the interviewee from A few donors also underlined the importance the Dutch Embassy: ‘they [SNV] were also of conducting research or monitoring as operating there and had a more advisory role. part of the programming process. OSFA They were advising them [local governments] carries out extensive desk research before on setting priorities, budgeting; they were kind consulting stakeholders, so the organisation of facilitating the whole procedure’.117 is ‘also working as a think-tank on various issues that are important to the development For many of the bilateral donors active in of society. So it’s a dual function of the Albania, the decisions about programming are organisation; we [OSFA] are a donor and an ultimately taken back in the ‘home country’. implementer’.123 For the EU, each Delegation The Dutch Embassy feeds into decisions about has a Political, Economic and Information programming, but the final decision is made (PEI) section, whose monitoring is the basis at the Hague, such as the prioritisation of for the Progress Reports and Operations the rule of law in its strategies.118 The Swiss Cooperation Office strategies are agreed by 119 Interview with an official at the SCO office in Albania. 120 Interview with an official at the US Embassy in 115 Interview with an official at the OSFA office in Albania. Albania. 116 Interview with an official at the SIDA office in Albania. 121 Interview with an official at the USAID office in 117 Interview with an official at the Dutch Embassy in Albania. Albania. 122 Interview with an official at the SIDA office in Albania. 118 Interview with an official at the Dutch Embassy in 123 Interview with an official at the Open Society Albania. Foundation for Albania. 38 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans section (that implements EU support).124 These with each other, and Albanian partners did not Progress Reports are crucial in formulating attend, even though they were invited to do so. programmes. For example, according to a The informal meeting was quite fruitful, and TACSO Resident Advisor, ‘the Progress Report donors ‘agreed on five points that are going has demonstrated … there is much to be done, to be put on the agenda for the next official support to Roma groups remains a very critical meeting with the Ministry for Infrastructure issue because Roma and Egyptian rights that is responsible for water supply’.127 The are still not taken into account, and that’s Dutch Embassy has attended meetings, enough for the EUD here to mobilize additional organized by the donors themselves, on the systems in supporting such causes through coordination of activities related to prison making priorities for Roma and Egyptian reform and civil society.128 OSFA highlighted communities under the current Call’.125 the informal contact with the EUD in Tirana: ‘we basically exchange information and also 4.5. Donor Coordination with the Delegation; it’s based more on our will than on some mechanism in place which you Although the donor coordination structures in convene and you discuss’.129 The US Embassy the form of DSDC WGs (outlined in the previous interviewee also explained the Democracy section) require the Albanian Government to Commission, which is a consultative body lead, respondents expressed concern about the that includes civil society representatives and capacity of the new Government in Tirana to do officials from other donors in Albania: so. For example, the Open Society respondent said: ‘[We] try to discuss about all the proposals that we [the US Embassy] have ‘I am not very impressed with this kind received, if there are similar projects that of coordination and this particular time have been supported in the past, getting there is very little coordination, because also information on the organisations the government has been two months in and also getting information for co- place so, as part of their structure, it is not funding. If we are not able to fund some very clear how they are going to handle of the proposals, they may also jump in that, there is a sort of confusion like who and help with that; in a way overlap with is doing what at the current moment’.126 funding but also trying to coordinate if With weak coordination from the state, possible, the funding part as well’. there are instances of ad hoc coordination Coordination in this way also ensures that amongst donors in Albania. The German there is no duplication in donor activities.130 Embassy, for example, had attended an The interviewee from the German Embassy informal lunch meeting with other donor also cited the example of VAT redistribution representatives on the day of the interview as an example where there has been good to discuss coordination around the water coordination amongst donors.131 One model sector. This meeting was conducted because that was suggested by the World Bank of low Albanian Government capacities, since the relevant Ministry would not be able to 127 Interview with an official at the German Embassy in manage 20 donors all coming at once. Before Albania. the establishment of sector WGs, donors met 128 Interview with an official at the Dutch Embassy in Albania. 124 Interview with an official at the EUD office in Albania. 129 Interview with an official at the OSFA office in Albania. 125 Interview with an official at the TACSO office in 130 Interview with an official at the US Embassy in Albania. Albania. 126 Interview with an official at the Open Society 131 Interview with an official at the German Embassy in Foundation for Albania. Albania. Balkan Civic Practices # 11 39 interviewee to avoid confusion amongst that we had is that it should follow and donors was to establish a ‘country system’ complement the EU support’.136 through which the procedures for assistance The TACSO Resident Advisor reported that (e.g. procurement and financial management) although the WG on civil society started with will be standardised, making things easier for an OSCE initiative with a rotating leadership, both donors and the Albanian government.132 ‘it has become evident that EU assistance is The interaction amongst donors in Albania has the one that predominates. They are using our led to a certain amount of exchange on best projects as technical secretariat, just keeping practice. For example, the German Embassy data on financial support so in that sense respondent said that ‘each donor brings in everybody is able to see their own support something they have from their scientific or to compare it with the support of other 137 institutions or from their own countries or organisations’. The respondent from the something they have cooperated on with an German Embassy added that the lead donor Albanian institution and they bring it in the depended on the sector. In the water sector, circle of donors and for sure this influences our Germany and the World Bank are active. For strategy’.133 According to SIDA, their approach example, Germany (including GIZ and KfW) has 110 staff in Albania, so they have the capacity to civil society development has been received to write strategic papers and have more favourably by the EU, which ‘presented some influence. Sweden is strong on professional components of the EU Guidelines for Support education and good governance. The World to Civil Society; they talk about operation Bank, the EU, and OSCE are strong in other grants, core support, grass root organizations, sectors, and the Austrians are influential as I mean concepts that were not new to me, well.138 because in an open discussion with colleagues from the EUD they said that they found the One aspect of the SIDA model for developing Swedish model really very good’.134 aid programmes that was not mentioned by other respondents was that of intra-donor Certain donors are understood to be the coordination, i.e. how different field offices in agenda setters in specific sectors. In the area the region exchange and consult with each of civil society development, the EUD sees other. For donors that do not have such a itself as the donor that has taken the initiative model, it may be useful to develop this type to coordinate civil society support135, which is of cross-country exchange. According to the corroborated by SIDA: interviewee from SIDA:

‘There was a … presentation by the Internally, we have had working groups DG Enlargement of the support to civil working in the same area - civil society, society which was very useful especially gender, human rights. They were sitting for us who are in this process of how together and working, from the countries to make operational our strategy, so of the region, based on the input that what will happen with our current CS each country had from the consultations programmes and then the discussions with their own partners, with their own context analysis, with their evaluations, 132 Interview with an official at the World Bank office in reports, and we sat together in working Albania. 133 Interview with an official at the German Embassy in 136 Interview with an official at the SIDA office in Albania. Albania. 137 Interview with an official at the TACSO office in 134 Interview with an official at the SIDA office in Albania. Albania 135 Interview with an official at the EU Delegation office in 138 Interview with an official at the German Embassy in Albania. Albania. 40 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans

groups… [All] the Embassies and SIDA Competitiveness programmes. The USAID discussed concretely how to work grants range between USD 7,000 (approx. EUR with CS in the result area that we have 5,500) and USD 2.5 mil (approx. EUR 1.96 mil) proposed to the Government, what will and last for up to three years. In Albania, USAID that mean for each of the Embassies, chose to work directly with local CSOs in order should we try to change the modalities, to help them build their capacities and avoid how we should complement with the the extra costs associated with international 141 EUD, with the EU support in the country, intermediaries. In addition, the US Embassy so these are the internal discussions we administers the Democracy Commission Small are having.139 Grants programme for which local CSOs are eligible. The Swiss Cooperation Office also has 4.6. Donor Assistance a Small Action Fund for CSOs with an annual budget of CHF 200,000 (approx. EUR 166,000), to Civil Society while the Dutch Embassy supports CSOs Donors in Albania provide assistance to through the MATRA programme focusing on civil society through direct project grants, the rule of law and EU integration. OSFA, which implementing partners and non-financial forms used to provide institutional funding for CSOs of support. The EUD supports civil society ‘a long time ago’, is now exclusively supporting through the CSF and EIDHR programmes, but civil society with project grants. Finally, the also through the IPA Cross-Border Cooperation World Bank closed its Civil Society Fund in (CBC) programme within which 100 contracts 2012, but it still has a small programme with worth EUR 28 mil have been signed in the a budget of USD 50,000 (approx. EUR 39,000) last five years. While the CBC is designed to focusing on empowering vulnerable groups. support local government units in bordering A number of donors resort to implementing areas, it is also open to CSOs which are partners for delivering civil society assistance. actually the main recipients of funding from The Dutch Embassy channels its assistance to this programme. According to the TACSO environmental organisations via the Regional representative in Tirana, 80 per cent of the Environmental Centre (REC) in order to reach CBC funds are channelled through CSOs.140 smaller organisations operating outside Tirana. Albanian CSOs are also eligible for the EU’s As mentioned earlier, REC also administers Youth in Action, Culture and Europe for Citizens project grants for environmental CSOs on programmes which are administered by the behalf of SIDA, which has so far delivered its Albanian government. The EUD in Albania civil society assistance through the Swedish seeks to put more emphasis on supporting organisations cited above. This is bound to smaller organisations by encouraging them change as SIDA’s contract with the Swedish to enter in partnership with established CSOs framework organisations engaged in building when applying for EU funds. Also, most of the capacities of Albanian CSOs was due to the beneficiaries of the CBC programme are expire in 2014.142 As mentioned in the regional smaller, peripheral, organisations. section of the report, some donors resort to Besides the EU, several other donors provide implementing partners in order to minimise direct project grants for civil society. Although the risk of misuse of funds and corruption. For it does not have a stand-alone civil society this reason, the EU is supporting organisations programme, USAID supports CSOs through dealing with children’s rights through UNICEF its Rule of Law, Good Governance and 141 Interview with an official at the USAID office in 139 Interview with an official at the SIDA office in Albania. Albania. 140 Interview with an official at the TACSO office in 142 Interview with an official at the Swedish Embassy in Albania. Albania. Balkan Civic Practices # 11 41 and those dealing with Roma and Egyptian region. During the last decade, the involvement communities through UNDP.143 of international donors in BiH has been substantially reduced. Since BiH is no longer Finally, several donors stated that they provide considered to be a post-conflict zone, many non-financial support for civil society in multilateral agencies that were heavily involved different kind of ways. For example the OSFA in the country have either left or scaled officials stated that recent assistance was not down their activities. This applies to most in the form of direct project grants, but rather UN agencies, except UNDP which nowadays in providing support for organising protests counts for approximately 60 per cent of UN and meetings on environmental issues.144 intervention BiH with a budget of USD 25 mil Besides giving grants, the EU provides (approx. EUR 19.6 mil) in 2013.146 technical assistance through its TACSO project, while the People to People programme gives Nevertheless, BiH remains a priority for a the opportunity for CSO representatives from number of bilateral donors. For example, all the WB countries to go to Brussels to be unlike other places in the Western Balkans, trained on a given subject and meet with EU BiH remains a beneficiary of German bilateral representatives. USAID also provides some development cooperation. In 2013, Germany’s technical assistance for helping CSOs to assistance to BiH amounted to EUR 56 mil, develop organisational capacities and work on with EUR 4.5 mil for technical cooperation and internal governance. the rest for financial cooperation, mainly in the form of loans.147 Following Germany, Sweden is the second most important bilateral donor in BiH with a budget of EUR 20 mil, which is likely to decrease slightly in the future. Over the last few years, Swedish assistance to civil society amounted to approximately EUR 1.5-2 mil annually.148 Switzerland has traditionally 5. Bosnia- had a strong presence in BiH. The SCO has been active since 1996. Its activities have Herzegovina evolved from humanitarian aid in the 1990s to development cooperation in the 2000s. 5.1. Levels of Donor Support The SCO currently has a budget of around Over the past 20 years, BiH has been one of CHF 20 mil (approx. EUR 16.6 mil) annually, the biggest recipients of international aid in with an additional CHF 1.5 mil (approx. EUR the world. It is estimated that USD 14 billion 1.2 mil) coming from the Human Security (approx. EUR 11.3 billions) in international aid Programme which deals with transitional was poured into reconstruction efforts in BiH justice and coming to terms with the past.149 between 1996 and 2007.145 This post-conflict While it is scaling down its programmes in reconstruction effort was coupled with post- neighbouring countries, USAID remains heavily socialist democratisation and marketisation involved in Bosnia with a total budget of USD policies that were in place throughout the 146 Interview with an official at the UNDP office in Bosnia-Herzegovina. In 2012, UNDP allocated 4.7 143 Interview with an official at the TACSO office in million USD to CSOs. Albania. 147 Interview with an official at the GIZ office in Bosnia- 144 Interview with an official at the Open Society Herzegovina. Foundation for Albania. 148 Interview with an official at the Embassy of Sweden in 145 Howard, Ivana. Mistakes Donors Make: Civil Society Bosnia-Herzegovina. and Democracy Assistance in the Balkans. (Belgrade: 149 Interview with officials at the Swiss Cooperation Heartefact Fund, 2011), 31 Office in Bosnia-Herzegovina. 42 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans

20 mil (approx. EUR 15.7 mil) per year.150 So education, and public administration reform) does Norway, whose overall assistance to and the SCO (along with health, economy, Bosnia amounts to EUR 13 mil. The Embassy gender, and a separate transitional justice of Norway in Sarajevo administers the Civil programme). The interviewee from USAID Society Fund whose budget is approximately mentioned two earlier programmes: the Office NOK 10 mil (approx. EUR 1.2 mil) and the of Transition Initiative (OTI) promoted the Embassy Fund that counts for another NOK creation of CSOs; and the Democracy Network 6 mil (approx. EUR 726,000).151 Finally, the (DemNet), which ran to 2004, successfully British Embassy has an envelope of GBP strengthened the organizational capacities 1.75-2 mil (approx. EUR 2.2 mil-2.5 mil), but of 100 active BiH organisations.155 There is these funds are never entirely implemented. overarching priority among donors to support Approximately one quarter of the budget goes the EU integration process, which has an effect to civil society. In 2013, GBP 150,000 (approx. on the long-term plans for donor involvement EUR 190,000) was allocated to capacity in the country (see below). For example, the building for CSOs, this figure is set to increase interviewee from SIDA said: in the future.152 ‘The EU and the accession process is Note that, at the time of research, the EU had a sort of a powerful instrument for cut the IPA funds for BiH by half and suspended development in this region and Sweden the preparation of the Country Strategy Paper has something to contribute to that for IPA II as a means to pressure the Bosnian accession process as a donor, as a authorities to endorse the decisions of the development assistance agent. So I European Court of Human Rights and to think, even if this region is not from an 153 establish a functional state administration. economic or poverty level the neediest region in the world, it’s a conviction that 5.2. Motives for Donor Presence Sweden can make a difference here and The Open Society Foundation (OSF) first some sort of extra push here. I mean, a opened its office in BiH in 1993 and initially number of other donors have left already funded humanitarian, media, and culture but Sweden remains here because I think programmes implemented by organisations they feel [that] a big push now in the from different parts of the political spectrum. next few years can make a big difference However, since the end of the war in 1995, OSF and create a big return on investment in has returned to its core objectives of promoting terms of these countries becoming EU the development of an ‘open society’, which members, strengthening the EU more 156 requires a more selective approach to generally, and stabilising the region’. funding.154 The prioritisation of governance was The SIDA regional strategy is designed to explicitly mentioned by the respondents from parallel the EU’s IPA 2014-2020 support. the German Embassy (along with energy, adult 5.2. Plans for the Future 150 Interview with an official at the USAID office in Bosnia-Herzegovina. As mentioned in the previous section, donors 151 Phone interview with an official from the Norwegian recognise that EU integration is a priority area, Embassy in Bosnia-Herzegovina. but that also affects the long-term strategies 152 Interview with officials at the UK Embassy in Bosnia- Herzegovina. 153 See section 1.3 in the regional part of the report and 155 Interview with an official at the USAID office in section 5.3 in this part of the report Bosnia-Herzegovina. 154 Interview with an official at the Open Society Fund – 156 Interview with an official at the SIDA office in Bosnia- Bosnia-Herzegovina. Herzegovina. Balkan Civic Practices # 11 43 of donors in the country. The current USAID of the recipient states have more responsibility strategy expires in 2016, and there will be in developing the strategies for each sector. a strategy following this, but a longer term However, there is insufficient capacity for presence in BiH will depend on the status of EU planning among governmental actors in BiH integration.157 The British DFID (Department due to the fragmented governance structure. for International Development) closed, because The EU wants to have one interlocutor in British aid is being channelled through the BiH, which is currently not the case since the EU.158 SIDA has employed the aforementioned Department for European Integration has regional strategy (covering Albania, BiH, no authority over governments at the entity Kosovo, Macedonia, and Serbia) for 2014-2021 level.160 that will allow flexibility for the Swedish agency Several bilateral donors have highlighted the to pull out of some countries if necessary, lack of capacities and political will for policy depending on the pace of EU integration: planning at the central government level as ‘If some countries, Serbia for example, a major problem. The GIZ Country Director makes quick progress then we won’t suggested that there is a lack of political will to support Serbia for 7 years. We will develop common strategies: support through this strategy for only It’s a lack of political will, it’s a lack of 3-4 years. It gives us some flexibility coordination, the lack of political will to and then we can shift the funds to other develop strategies that are then valid for countries. Nobody is expecting Bosnia the whole country. Or at least develop to be progressing too quickly on their something in both entities and bring path, or Kosovo - Albania maybe, Serbia them together. In energy for example, certainly, and then obviously Montenegro you cannot develop a Republika Srpska and Macedonia’.159 and a Federation strategy, it needs to go together. The country is so small. (...) 5.3. Modalities of Aid Planning Or economic development; You need to and Programming among Donors consider economic potential not only at The donor representatives interviewed the level of an entity or the level of BiH. for this study suggested that the fate of You need to see it as part of the region. aid programming depends on clearing the Strategies need to be developed on this impasse in the planning of EU assistance. As basis. Of course you can start at entity mentioned above, at the time of research, the level but then you need to bring it together EU had cut the IPA funds for BiH by half and at higher levels and there is a lack. suspended the preparation of the Country Discussions are already difficult because 161 Strategy Paper for IPA 2014-2020. The EU competencies are not too clear. has conditioned IPA 2014-2020 upon the Despite the weak capacities of the Bosnian establishment of a national coordination body state, donors continue to draft their strategies for the implementation of IPA. As a result of by consulting with Bosnian governmental the change in approach to drafting strategies authorities. Aid planning at the UN is based on between IPA I and IPA II, the administrations the UN Development Assistance Framework (UNDAP), which covers a 4-5 year period and 157 Interview with an official at the USAID office in is developed through cooperation with state, Bosnia-Herzegovina. 158 Interview with an official at the British Embassy in 160 Interview with an official at the EU Delegation office in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Bosnia-Herzegovina. 159 Interview with an official at the SIDA office in Bosnia- 161 Interview with Brigitte Heuel-Rolf, Country Director Herzegovina. at the GIZ Office in Bosnia-Herzegovina. 44 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans entity, and local government officials.162 GIZ term). This allows SCO to develop strategic primarily consults with state bodies in the goals and priorities.167 development of projects.163 Besides consulting the government, some Although most donors have offices in Sarajevo, donors involve local civil society actors in aid planning is substantially informed by the formulation of strategies. According to decisions made at the donor headquarters. Center for Promotion of Civil Society (CPCS), For instance, aid planning at SIDA has moved USAID has the widest consultation with civil away from the sectoral approach towards a society. The interviewee from USAID said that more regional, results-oriented approach in the American agency sends their proposals which the Swedish government sets objectives. to CSO networks in the country, but that While the field offices used to have a lot of CSOs do not provide good feedback, and are autonomy, there has been a shift to a more not constructive in helping out with project top-down approach, where the Swedish design.168 The EU’s attempt at setting up a Government is more involved. However, the formalised consultative mechanism with country offices still have freedom to do what civil society has not been successful so far. they want within the areas prioritised by the Although the EU suspended the drafting of the government.164 Similarly, there are general Country Strategy Paper (CSP), it conducted guidelines for assistance for the entire one round of consultations with CSOs. There Western Balkans region sent from Oslo to the was a call for applications to set up a sectoral Norwegian Embassy in Sarajevo. From these CSO structure akin to SEKO in Serbia (with guidelines, the Embassy prioritises activities seven sectors and three leading organisations based on continuous work on the ground and in each sector), but for the time being, the on consultations with diplomats, civil society CSO consultations were limited to gathering actors, and politicians.165 The UK assistance information for the CSP.169 SIDA only consults is also decided centrally, in London. There with key partners when devising strategies. is no country strategy, per se, but rather a According to the interviewee from SIDA: general strategy, which makes it difficult to We sort of know more or less who to coordinate with other donors active in Bosnia- invite but we haven’t had sort of wide Herzegovina. The British Embassy consults ranging consultations with civil society. with local authorities and CSOs to formulate We have some key civil society partners projects which are then proposed to the that we work with and that we know and headquarters in London.166 SCO develops its we invite them. But we haven’t had like strategies on the basis of an assessment of the an open invitation for anybody to come results of the previous country strategies and and give their input on the strategy.170 broader strategies for the Western Balkans, and on the basis of a needs assessment of On the other hand, the UNDP has its own different sectors on the ground (which do not database of 300 CSOs with whom it has change often, since the engagement is long- cooperated in the last 5-6 years. For UNDP, the input of small, rural, organisations is 162 Interview with an official at the UNDP office in as important as the input of established, Bosnia-Herzegovina. 163 Interview with an official at the GIZ office in Bosnia- 167 Interview with an official at the Swiss Co-operation Herzegovina. office in Bosnia-Herzegovina. 164 Interview with an official at the SIDA office in Bosnia- 168 Interview with an official at the USAID office in Herzegovina. Bosnia-Herzegovina. 165 Phone interview with an official from the Embassy of 169 Interview with an official at the EU Delegation office in Norway in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Bosnia-Herzegovina. 166 Interview with an official at the British Embassy in 170 Interview with an official at the SIDA office in Bosnia- Bosnia-Herzegovina. Herzegovina. Balkan Civic Practices # 11 45 urban, CSOs. The level of consultation with was only one meeting in 2013. There are only various stakeholders depends on the sector meetings where some donors present their of intervention.171 The World Bank, though it projects without linking them to the work of mainly works with the Bosnian government other donors.174 The interviewees from the officials, carries out consultations with civil British Embassy added that the complexity of society, media and the academic community the state makes coordination very difficult. The in the development of its strategy. These state has not taken the role of lead coordinator consultations can be more or less formal. as it lacks capacity, and there is no European In BiH, these consultations were organised coordination mechanism. In addition, there is through five roundtables on different topics no overall country development strategy on which involved all the local stakeholders.172 which donors can align their activities.175 The interviewee from SIDA distinguished 5.4. Donor Coordination between the utility of the general and sectoral The research identified several mechanisms meetings, stating that the latter were far more for donor coordination in BiH: the Donor effective: Coordination Unit attached to the Ministry of The bigger high-level ones … are very, Finance (s.c. high-level coordination); sectoral very generic. Often you have these coordination meetings organised by some meetings where there are quite a lot ministries; Informal meetings among donors; of people there, there could be forty, and project-level coordination. However, the fifty, sixty people there and then usually same fragmentation of Bosnian authority that what they do is they invite somebody to plagues day-to-day politics in the country also present what their current activities are. stymies donor coordination. One example is It might be the Swiss Government, or the that of ammunition destruction, where EUFOR EU, or us. It’s just to me they are quite cooperates with the OSCE and UNDP, on an ad slow, they’re quite uninteresting. But, of hoc basis. However, the process of de-mining course, but this is at the high-level ones. is stuck because the law on de-mining has not At the sector level - for example, the one been enacted. According to the respondent led by the EU at the justice sector- that’s from GIZ, donor coordination should be led by actually a very sort of functional one. It the government, which is unfortunately not the works well. It’s relatively focussed, it’s case in BiH: once every two or three months, it’s a ‘The Bosnian partners are not involved; useful exchange of information, and it’s because they are the ones who should a small enough group - only about 10-15 be in the lead when it comes to sector people who are part of that.176 strategies. It’s not for the donor to decide The interviewee from the Norwegian Embassy which strategy BiH should follow in the concurred that a sectoral approach may energy sector. But these mechanisms be more fruitful.177 As mentioned above, 173 don’t really work in this country’. there is also project-level coordination The Ministry of Justice should be responsible through steering committees, but the EUD for high-level donor coordination, but there 174 Interview with an official at the EU Delegation office in Bosnia-Herzegovina. 171 Interview with an official at the UNDP office in 175 Interview with an official at the British Embassy in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Bosnia-Herzegovina. 172 Interview with an official at the World Bank office in 176 Interview with an official at the SIDA office in Bosnia- Bosnia-Herzegovina. Herzegovina. 173 Interview with Brigitte Heuel-Rolf, Country Director 177 Interview with an official at the Norwegian Embassy at the GIZ Office in Bosnia-Herzegovina. in Bosnia-Herzegovina. 46 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans respondent said that this was not a sustainable the complexity of civil society programming mechanism, since it mainly consists of Bosnian is that it is often a cross-cutting issue, so it is institutional representatives who do not come not reduced to coordination in one sector. For to any agreement.178 this reason, this has led to instances when a donor implemented a project and, two or Since the state is not able to shape donor three years later, another donor initiated a coordination, donors pursue more informal project to tackle the same problem with a channels of coordination, which was different approach, which created confusion mentioned by the interviewees from SIDA, the among local stakeholders. The danger of British Embassy, the World Bank, and GIZ. For having less structured, informal meetings is example, SIDA organizes a meeting every three that it is difficult to have a complete picture of months to coordinate around environmental donor activities and priorities in the country, protection, to fill the gaps of the official sectoral even with the database of donor projects in mechanisms.179 The UNDP said that there the country compiled by the Bosnian Donor are coordination bodies for the civil society Coordination Forum (DCF). The interviewees projects funded by the EU, which include from the British Embassy were concerned representatives of the government. This has that there is no clear data on where the funds allowed UNDP to work together with TACSO on are going. The donor mapping system is building the capacity of CSOs to write project not complete and up to date. The database proposals in municipalities benefiting from the has always been retroactive, which raises LOD project. However, the EUD interviewee questions about its purpose. It does not allow said that much of the coordination around donors to identify partners.183 civil society is done informally. According to the EUD respondent, USAID is the lead Overall, the objective of EU integration drives donor in the informal coordination of civil donor activities, so it is no surprise that the society programming in BiH, where the EU, EU is seen as the main agenda setter in donor USAID, and the Embassies of the Netherlands, assistance in the country. USAID stated that Sweden, and Norway are most involved.180 The they align their activities with the EU, because Norwegian Embassy interviewee added that their objective is to have BiH on the European this ad hoc coordination is done at the project path. They seek to be complementary with the level ‘if we find that there are other donors EU.184 For these reasons, SIDA works closely involved either with the same organization with the EU: or the same topic- for example, gender is something that there are a lot of initiatives to We work very closely with the EU. We coordinate on, and also LGBT’.181 The downside work with them closely on the ground of this is that, since there is no formal here but also as a member state we mechanism, CSOs do not cooperate in the influence the EU a lot. We follow-up implementation of projects. Donors are aware quite closely on what they do here and that it is necessary to have better cooperation we sort of sent via Stockholm guidance around civil society programming.182 Part of and information that then our Swedish colleagues in Brussels will then raise at 178 Interview with an official at the EU Delegation office in various meetings, etc. That is something Bosnia-Herzegovina. 185 179 Interview with an official at the World Bank office in we prioritise, that follow-up of the EU. Bosnia-Herzegovina. 180 Interview with an official at the EU Delegation office in 183 Interview with officials at the British Embassy in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Bosnia-Herzegovina. 181 Interview with an official at the Norwegian Embassy 184 Interview with an official at the USAID office in in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Bosnia-Herzegovina. 182 Interview with an official at the USAID office in 185 Interview with an official at the SIDA office in Bosnia- Bosnia-Herzegovina. Herzegovina. Balkan Civic Practices # 11 47

On the other hand, surprisingly, the British to civil society remains relatively high for the Embassy actually works quite closely with the region. According to Milan Mrđa from CPCS, Americans, not the EU, and the interviewees there has never been so much funding for civil mentioned that there was a possibility for society in BiH as there is now. In his view, the the Embassy to merge funds with USAID.186 problem of civil society in BiH is not the lack of Although the donors recognize the key role funding but the lack of competencies.189 of the EU as the agenda setter, they remained Most donors in BiH support civil society split on the EU strategy of pushing reform through project grants. With a budget of via strong conditionality, namely freezing IPA EUR 4 mil in 2011 (EUR 3 mil for CSF and funding. According to the SIDA respondent, EUR 1 mil for EIDHR), the EU is the most Sweden is remaining ‘on the fence’ for the time important foreign source of funding for CSOs. being: However, unlike in other WB countries, the There’s a very split opinion between the EUD channels most of its aid through local member states as to how to deal with municipalities as part of the Local Democracy that. Some people want to do much more (LOD) project. As described in the regional conditionality and put funds on hold to part of the report (section 3.3), LOD is a sub- send a message to the government here granting mechanism which seeks to build to say that this is not OK. Others say the capacity of the municipalities to support that it’s not going to work, don’t bother. CSOs in an impartial and transparent manner. It’s a very split thing and at the moment The EU co-finances projects which have been Sweden is on the fence. Sweden doesn’t selected by the municipalities according to totally believe that that is an effective a standard set of procedures developed in approach but at the same time they are cooperation with UNDP which administers concerned that is a problem that we just the LOD project. Besides supporting CSOs keep disbursing funds to these govern- through the LOD programme, the EUD seeks ment agencies and institutions while at to promote networking among CSOs through a the same time their politicians are not grant scheme that is exclusively aimed at CSO doing what they are promising to do.187 networks. The grant scheme for CSO networks and EIDHR are directly administered by the By contrast, the USAID interviewee said that EUD in Sarajevo.190 freezing the IPA funds will hit the beneficiaries rather than the government representatives, Aside from the EU, USAID, Sweden and and was concerned that this measure will not Norway provide substantial support to civil affect political elites, who are the source of the society. Most of these donors have focused problem.188 their assistance on developing the capacities of a limited number of CSOs that are already 5.5. Donor Assistance to Civil established in their field. For example, the next USAID civil society programme involves USD Society 8.8 mil (approx. EUR 6.9 mil) for 5 years, half of which is aimed for re-granting administered by Although foreign aid to BiH has decreased over local partners (CPCS and CCI). This programme the past decade, the level of donor assistance seeks to provide assistance to a select number 186 Interview with an official at the British Embassy in of CSOs for 5 years in order to give them Bosnia-Herzegovina. 187 Interview with an official at the SIDA office in Bosnia- 189 Interview with Milan Mrđa, Program Manager at the Herzegovina. Center for Promotion of Civil Society (CPCD). 188 Interview with an official at the USAID office in 190 Interview with an official at the EU Delegation in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Bosnia-Herzegovina. 48 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans some security and allow them to develop for advocacy CSOs like the one established by their capacities. According to the USAID the Centre for Civic Initiatives (CCI). representative, the objective is ‘that, in 5 years, Finally, a number of donors support civil there are 10-12 organisations that are active in society in an indirect way by including CSOs in this sector, as someone who can do something the implementation of projects. For example, in the name of civil society and in cooperation GIZ engages with civil society in its local with others’.191 In partnership with USAID, governance and local government programme the UK Embassy provides support for CSOs in the context of public-private partnerships. to become leaders in specific sectors, secure They also consult with civil society for adult sustainability, and build capacities for lobbying education. Nevertheless, the GIZ representative and advocacy. The Norwegian embassy stated that it is very difficult for them to focuses its support on advocacy oriented CSOs engage with civil society because they cannot through both project grants and institutional find adequate partners.195 The SCO engages funding. The interviewee from the Embassy of with civil society in the planning and/or the Norway suggested that they have a preference implementation of most of its activities. For for giving large grants (up to NOK 1mil or example, the local governance programme approx. EUR 790,000) because they ‘would includes support for the Mesne Zajednice (local like to support projects and organisations of communities), while the justice programme a certain size rather than very small ones’.192 involves support for CSOs working in the SIDA only provides institutional grants to the field of judicial transparency.196 The World Centre for Investigative Reporting, but it is Bank also implements some projects directly considering introducing core funding for other through CSOs, such as the Youth Programme organisations.193 which was implemented by the Mozaik Donors in BiH are pioneers in terms of shifting foundation. Occasionally, CSOs are selected as from international to local partners for implementors through tenders funded by the administering civil society programmes. As World Bank but administered by the state. To mentioned in the regional part of the report sum up, the World Bank official interviewed (section 2.1), USAID has been implementing for this study suggested that CSOs should its civil society assistance in BiH through local recognise the World Bank as a partner that can partners since 2001. SIDA is also phasing out influence policy-making rather than a source the use of foreign intermediaries faster than of funding.197 In a similar spirit, the UNDP in other countries. According to a SIDA official representative suggested that he sees CSOs in BiH, channeling assistance through local as partners for service-delivery, for providing organisations is more beneficial ‘because these advice on specific issues and for coordinating CSOs work together as partners, they see activities.198 themselves as part of a common network, they support each other and stand side-by-side’.194 As part of their organizational overhaul, SIDA is considering different models of support for civil society, such as establishing an advocacy fund 195 Interview with an official at the GIZ office in Bosnia- 191 Interview with an official at the USAID office in Herzegovina. Bosnia-Herzegovina. 196 Interview with officials at the Swiss Cooperation 192 Interview with an official at the Embassy of Norway in Office in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Bosnia-Herzegovina. 197 Interview with an official at the World Bank office in 193 Interview with an official at the Swedish Embassy in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Bosnia-Herzegovina. 198 Interview with an official at the UNDP office in 194 Ibid. Bosnia-Herzegovina. Balkan Civic Practices # 11 49

a budget of CHF 80 mil (approx. EUR 65 mil) for the period 2013-2016.203 As in other WB countries, the Scandinavian countries are very active in terms of development cooperation. Since 2008, SIDA’s budget has been SEK 80 mil (approx. EUR 8.9 mil), out of which 30 -35 6. Kosovo per cent has been dedicated to civil society 6.1. Levels of Donor Support support. In 2011, Norway’s assistance to Kosovo amounted to EUR 16 mil, out of which Like in BiH, the international community EUR 2 mil were allocated to civil society.204 has deployed a major reconstruction effort Finally, the UK has the same programmes in Kosovo following the 1999 conflict. It is in Kosovo as in the other WB countries: the estimated that the international aid outpaced Conflict Prevention Programme with an annual the Marshall Plan in terms of dollar per capita budget of around GBP 2.5 mil (approx. EUR amounts of aid 7 times in BiH and 4 times 3.2 mil) and the Re-uniting Europe whose in Kosovo.199 According to Luan Shllaku, the budget for 2013-2014 was about GBP 300,000 Director of the Kosovo Foundation for Open (approx. EUR 380,000).205 Society (KFOS), the early 2000s were a time Several private foundations are operating in when there were many donors but few CSOs. Kosovo. The most important of them is the The situation has drastically changed since Open Society with a total budget of EUR 3 then insofar as the availability of funding has mil, out of which EUR 2 mil are channelled decreased – there is now ‘few money for many through the Foundation’s local branch – KFOS. ideas’.200 KFOS gets an additional EUR 1-1.5 mil for In spite of this trend, Kosovo remains at the implementing projects on behalf of other top of the agenda for both multilateral and donors, mainly within the scope of the Roma bilateral donors in the WB. Besides hosting programme.206 the EU’s largest civilian mission abroad (the EULEX), Kosovo also hosts the biggest OSCE 6.2. Motives for Donor Presence Mission in the history of this organisation. The EU’s total annual commitment in Kosovo is As mentioned above, there is still a large around EUR 67 mil, out of which approximately donor presence in Kosovo, although not at EUR 2.6 mil are allocated to civil society.201 The the same level as there used to be during the OSCE Mission to Kosovo counts about 500-600 post-conflict period. Big donors have stayed members and a budget of around EUR 20 mil. in Kosovo because they still consider it as a crisis zone. From 1998 to 2000, SCO focused Among bilateral donors, USAID has maintained on emergency relief, after which the agency a strong presence in Kosovo with a budget of has focused on: water and waste; economy and around EUR 38 mil EUR (USD 54 mil) in 2010, out of which EUR 2.7 mil were allocated to civil 203 Interview with an official at the Swiss Cooperation society.202 The SCO is also heavily involved with Office in Kosovo. 204 These figures are for 2010, they were obtained during 199 Howard, Ivana. Mistakes Donors Make: Civil Society the pilot phase of the research. Note that the overall and Democracy Assistance in the Balkans. (Belgrade: budget was expected to remain constant for the next Heartefact Fund, 2011) 3 years. 200 Interview with Luan Shllaku, Executive Director of the 205 Interview with an official from the UK Embassy in Kosovo Foundation for Open Society. Kosovo. Note that, on top of this, the UK disburses 201 These figures are for 2010, they were obtained during around 2 million GBP for the secondment of the pilot phase of the research. personnel to EULEX. 202 These figures are for 2010, they were obtained during 206 Interview with Luan Shllaku, Executive Director of the the pilot phase of the research. Kosovo Foundation for Open Society. 50 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans employment; governance and decentralization; Europe’ programme would expand, while health; and migration. There is a special ‘value the ‘Conflict Prevention Programme’ will added’ aspect to the Swiss involvement in be reduced – echoing the move away from Kosovo, since there is a large diaspora in peacebuilding towards Europeanization. Switzerland, though Kosovo is an SCO priority These programmes will be gradually closed as much as other places in the Western as the country gets closer to the EU.213 The Balkans.207 In addition to the two programmes OSCE has a substantial presence in Kosovo. mentioned above, the British Embassy also has As mentioned above, it is the biggest mission a Drugs and Crimes fund that supports small in the history of the organization, though the projects for training the police and other state staffing in Kosovo has been steadily decreasing administration.208 KFOS opened its office in over the years. According to an official at OSCE, Pristina in 1994. Until 1999, it was the branch the organisation’s presence will depend on office of the Foundation for FRY. In the context Kosovo’s fulfilment of the Copenhagen criteria of the repression orchestrated by the Belgrade on the path to EU integration.214 government during the 1990s, the foundation focused on educational activities as Kosovo 6.4. Modalities of Aid Planning had a parallel education system at the time. and Programming among Donors After 1999, the focus became reconstruction and civil society development (creation of General EU programming is developed CSOs), as well as other activities, such as through the triangular relationship between culture.209 The OSCE in Kosovo used not only to the EU Office in Kosovo (EUOK), the European monitor elections, but also to organise them. Commission in Brussels, and the Kosovo Also, the OSCE served as part of the UNMIK Government. Programming is determined by administration.210 SIDA has been present in the political documents alongside the dialogue Kosovo since 1999, and until 2004-2005, the between the EU, the Kosovo Government, and focus was on reconstruction and infrastructure, civil society actors. The Kosovar line ministries though there is more of a focus on civil society propose ideas for programming based on and other issues since then.211 political documents, which are then collected by the Ministry for European Integration - the 6.3. Plans for the Future Kosovar counterpart to EUOK. The EUOK has specific task managers which cooperate closely From the interview data collected for Kosovo, with each line ministry in order to assist them the respondent from SIDA said that the in preparing their proposals for EU support. agency is planning to remain in Kosovo until In contrast to the general programming, the at least the year 2020.212 However, other planning of the two programmes focused on interviewees stated that the involvement strengthening civil society – CSF and EIDHR of their organisations would depend on the – does not include Government to the same pace of EU integration in Kosovo. DFID left extent and involves more consultations with Kosovo as the last mission in Europe in 2012. CSOs. For the CSF, a strategic document is In the coming years, the respondent from drafted in Brussels for the entire Western the British Embassy expected the ‘Reuniting Balkans, while national allocations priorities are determined by EUOK. The EUOK regularly 207 Interview with an official at the SCO office in Kosovo. 208 Interview with an official at the British Embassy in consults with civil society through the Local Kosovo. Action Group (LAG) for Kosovo. For EIDHR, the 209 Interview with an official at the KFOS office in Kosovo. 210 Interview with an official at the OSCE office in Kosovo. 213 Interview with an official at the British Embassy in 211 Interview with an official at the SIDA office in Kosovo. Kosovo. 212 Interview with an official at the SIDA office in Kosovo. 214 Interview with an official at the OSCE office in Kosovo. Balkan Civic Practices # 11 51 strategic document is drafted in Brussels for Western Balkans regional strategy has to get the entire world (EIDHR is a global instrument), the approval of the Parliament. Hence the while EUOK can choose which global objectives annual budget is decided by the MFA and the will be selected for Kosovo. In addition to Parliament. However, the Embassy’s input these instruments, civil society actors are also and comments are taken into consideration present in providing information as part of the based on their experience and their evaluated Stabilisation and Association process (SAp).215 needs.218 Consultation with CSOs has not been fruitful for the Norwegian Embassy – the A representative from KCSF, which respondent felt that CSOs do not have broad commissioned a previous study on donor views on issues and that they tend to only strategies in Kosovo, stated that the concentrate on funding. Furthermore, most Government in Kosovo has only had the of the views from civil society are conflicting, capacity to become involved in the planning so it is very difficult for donors to get the right of IPA in the past 2-3 years, because of perspective on issues from CSOs.219 insufficient capacity before that. The problem, however, with IPA programming is that there SIDA and SCO also have this type of is little local ownership, which represents a big coordination between the home country and problem when it comes to the implementation the field offices, with further information of legislation. Moreover, KCSF representative provided by local stakeholders. The Embassy added that documents are in English and they gathers information on the ground, which is are too technical for CSOs to read, understand processed by the headquarters and sent to and contribute: ‘it’s just about an email sent stakeholders for feedback. This subsequent to NGOs saying that this is the strategic paper needs assessment involves extensive and you have 7 or 10 days to comment’.216 The consultations with local stakeholders. respondent from KCSF added that there is a There were meetings with government more structured consultation as part of SAp, representatives, CSOs and various interest where there are sectoral groups that include groups, and not only with beneficiaries: ‘I consultation with civil society actors and was especially careful not to ask only our Government. By contrast, there are no formally beneficiaries, because there is always the structured consultation processes as part of tendency to praise, and to give you, let’s CSF or IPA programming, a gap that KCSF is say, not maybe that kind of realistic picture advocating to address.217 of the needs, so it was quite highly broad consultations period’.220 These weaknesses in consultation notwithstanding, the status of Euro-Atlantic The SCO has three stages of aid programming. integration and EU integration determine the It starts with a situation analysis which priorities of other donors in Kosovo. For the includes a review of previous actions and Norwegians, EU progress reports are checked a context analysis. This is usually done by when making a strategy for the region and consultants who carry out consultations with country. The Norwegian agenda in Kosovo is government, civil society, donors and other a political one: they support the Euro-Atlantic stakeholders. The second phase consists in a integration of Kosovo. The Ministry of Foreign ‘digestion’ of findings in consultation with all Affairs (MFA) in Oslo with the consultation stakeholders. The third phase is an elaboration from the Embassy writes its country by country of the actions that will be undertaken and strategy as well as a regional strategy. The 218 Interview with an official at the Norwegian Embassy 215 Interview with an official at the EU Office in Kosovo. in Kosovo, from the previous KCSF study.. 216 Interview with an official at the KCSF office in Kosovo. 219 Ibid. 217 Interview with an official at the KCSF office in Kosovo. 220 Interview with an official at the SIDA office in Kosovo. 52 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans included in the strategy. Once the sectors through a Program Outcome Evaluation of the and the sector objectives are identified, UNDP Kosovo work during the last five years, there is another round of consultations with where local stakeholders have participated. the government at the project level.221 The In addition to these mechanisms, UNDP has primary local stakeholders consulted during a joint agreement with the government in its the strategy are Pristina-based think-tanks, main program assistance. There are focal whilst CSOs are consulted in locations where points in line ministries which participate in the proposed projects are to take place. For drafting the joint document since early stages, example, non-formal consultations with a while a final agreement is reached also at the number of CSOs have been carried during level of government as a whole. In the final the drafting of the Credit Proposal, while stage of programming, each topic/area has an External Review has conducted broad its own consultation process through other discussions with different CSOs in order to tools such as meetings, roundtables, focus propose adjustments on this programme. For groups, interviews, and surveys, where local the Small Credit Line, the planning is based stakeholders discuss the initial proposal.224 on SCO staff’s experience and information The OSCE programming process is more from the colleagues within the office, while centralized. According to the interviewee from sometimes there are also non-formal meetings OSCE: with different CSOs.222 The planning of the programmatic By contrast, the British aid programming is priorities is a centralized process determined in London by the Foreign and which actually starts in the mission but Commonwealth Office (FCO). The Embassy it has to go on review and clearance develops its business plan according to the on the Secretariat level, including objectives set in London and local needs. The the review of all participating states. business plan forms the basis for the calls So when the mission comes up with for proposals. The priorities set in London the programmatic priorities, they are are usually broad enough to accommodate communicated through two different local needs.223 The UN mission in Kosovo documents to the participating states: has a similar procedure. The UN Millennium first it is the programme outline which Development Goals (MDGs) are translated outlines the mid- and long-term into local priorities. The MDGs are broad, so objectives, and then there is the annual the country office has quite a bit of flexibility unified budget proposal which is then the in setting Kosovo priorities. In general, one-year plan or one year resource plan; this process is highly consultative and what resources are needed to implement participatory, and draws from the Human the one year programme towards those Development Reports (HDR) and evaluation medium and long-term objectives.225 of past programmes. HDR is usually done by local experts and organizations, while the The OSCE consults with primary beneficiaries, topics of each HDR are consulted in advance both in government and CSOs, in developing with government and civil society. HDR serves programmes. The organization also has a as a context analysis. As an example of post- wider consultative process, as described by the programme evaluation, UNDP has gone interviewee from OSCE:

221 Interview with an official at the SCO office in Kosovo. 222 Interview with an official at the SCO office in Kosovo, 224 Interview with an official from the UN office in from the previous KCSF study. Kosovo, from the previous KCSF study. 223 Interview with an official at the British Embassy in 225 Interview with an official from the OSCE office in Kosovo. Kosovo. Balkan Civic Practices # 11 53

‘Based on these needs and the strategic duplication as well as have more ‘recognition of priorities of the stakeholders, then we their funds’. In other words, if smaller amount base and plan our programme. When of KFOS funds are put in the same objective I mention stakeholders, it’s not only with large EU/USAID funds, KFOS funds will 230 necessarily the beneficiary who is getting be deemphasized. The respondent from the the assistance or the support from us but UN office in Kosovo also said that the EU is the also the other actors in the field, other main agenda-setter in Kosovo. Although the international organizations, including the UN is a global intergovernmental organization, member states of OSCE.’226 due to the EU accession process, the wording of MDGs for Kosovo has been translated into At the other end of the spectrum, KFOS has the EU language. EU accession process is also full independence in the development of its a governmental priority, so UN agencies try strategy. The KFOS Board, which is mainly to be in line and contribute to EU accession composed of seven representatives from CSOs, process.231 determines the programme.227 The template for annual strategy is provided by the OSI However, the USAID added that it is also Headquarters in New York. The local staff seen as an agenda-setter, due to its presence (Executive Director and Program Coordinators) in Kosovar civil society. The 2002 USAID propose the strategic objectives. The draft Advocacy Program was the first programme strategy is presented in front of Local Board in supporting advocacy CSOs and thus has had Pristina and OSI Board in New York. The Local a strong influence on civil society in Kosovo. Board is involved also in defining the strategic In addition, because most of USAID supported priorities. The OSI Board in New York does projects have been rather small, the number of not change or revise the Strategy; it is either organizations and individuals involved in USAID approved or rejected. The Local Board is also funded projects was higher, compared to other mandated to propose new programs, which donors. By contrast, the EU had similar levels have to be approved by the OSI Board in New of funding, through bigger but fewer projects, York.228 so the number of organizations and individuals involved was lower.232 6.5. Donor Coordination According to the SCO interviewee, there are a number of donor coordination mechanisms. The EU integration process is seen as the The Kosovar Ministry of European Integration common objective around which donors is responsible for coordination at a general coordinate, making the EU the agenda-setter. level, but there are also a number of sectoral For example, the new SIDA strategy in Kosovo working groups within the Government with a is in line with IPA II.229 For KFOS, EU documents lead Ministry and lead donor. In parallel, there are more important with regards to policy are donor meetings organized by donors.233 objectives than funding specific mechanisms. One of the respondents from OSCE cited the However, if KFOS is informed that a specific Assembly donor conference as a good example donor (particularly major donors) allocates a of donor coordination: high amount of funds for a specific topic, KFOS tends to finance other things, in order to avoid 230 Interview with an official from the KFOS office in Kosovo, from the previous KCSF study. 226 Ibid. 231 Interview with an official from the UN office in 227 Interview with an official from the KFOS office in Kosovo, from the previous KCSF study. Kosovo. 232 Interview with an official from the USAID office in 228 Interview with an official from the KFOS office in Kosovo, from the previous KCSF study. Kosovo, from the previous KCSF study. 233 Interview with an official from the SCO office in 229 Interview with an official from the SIDA office in Kosovo. Kosovo. 54 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans

The Assembly had a donor conference The EUOK felt that the forum had some where they invite all donors to provide benefits, but that it is mostly a space to their inputs, provide their plans of exchange information rather than coordinating activities and areas of support and the donor agendas and interventions.238 USAID Assembly and different directorates of also echoed this perspective, and the shift from the administration present their needs – specific civil society program to horizontal that’s the first round. And then, we had support for civil society (within different a meeting with the Secretary General themes) was influenced by the information and the Donor Relations Officer there to that the Swiss are designing a specific fund for present, in the light of what other donors civil society (Democratic Society Promotion); have presented there, and in the light USAID thus saw that area would be more or of the demands we have received, we less covered by other donors. USAID added adjusted our activities and presented that it tries to find potential synergies (e.g. those again and tried to accord them. cooperation of USAID funded Civil Society And now in the final round, it’s a big Strengthening Program with TACSO in round again, there will be a presentation assisting the NGO Registration and Liaison of the final areas of support and Department during 2010-2011) within the supported activities and so far I think it is forum. The American agency also provides a good modus for this.234 references to all interested donors on CSOs that were USAID partners.239 Along these In light of the Paris Agreement on aid lines, the OSCE interviewee added that the effectiveness, SIDA has organized donor forum developed a matrix of project grantees coordination around civil society since 2011. to ensure that their inputs do not overlap and The meetings take place on a quarterly to be aware of other donors’ programmatic basis, involving 10-14 organisations, which priorities, adding that the basic purpose of excludes private donors. Occasionally, CSO these meetings is ‘to blacklist grantees that representatives give presentations on the don’t fulfil the criteria that donors have, to realities on the ground or around some specific ensure that one project proposal doesn’t 235 issues. This forum also has an internal get double or triple funding’.240 On the other database where all donors are invited to hand, KFOS is not invited, since it is a private provide information on the target groups, field donor. However, the interviewee from KFOS of work, amount of funds, year of funding for also felt that they were not included because their granted projects. This database is still not many do not consider them as donors (they public, although SIDA is interested to ask other see them as a CSO), while many others do not donors (or partners) to take the responsibility consider them as a CSO but purely a donor for maintaining this database and develop it agency. In reality, as an advocacy organisation 236 further. The respondent from SCO felt that and a grant-giver, KFOS has a dual role the forum, which meets every other month, which is unique in the field.241 Finally, the is a good initiative. Participants exchange British Embassy respondent was unaware of information and coordinate future actions. these meetings until told about them at the There are also discussions on what is missing and what should be done.237 238 Interview with an official from the EU Office in 234 Interview with an official from the OSCE office in Kosovo. Kosovo. 239 Interview with an official from the USAID office in 235 Interview with an official from the SIDA office in Kosovo. Kosovo. 240 Interview with an official from the OSCE office in 236 Interview with an official from the SIDA office in Kosovo. Kosovo, from the previous KCSF study. 241 Interview with an official from the KFOS office in 237 Interview with an official from the SCO office in Kosovo. Kosovo. Balkan Civic Practices # 11 55 interview with KCSF.242 Instead of participating 6.6. Donor Assistance in the forum, the Embassy relies on personal to Civil Society contacts with other donors and on the integrity of CSOs to ensure that there are no overlaps Donor assistance to civil society in Kosovo between projects. remains sizable despite the fact that many donors have scaled down their activities. There Although there are structures in place, many is one important particularity to civil society donors were expressed criticisms towards the assistance in Kosovo: many donors seem to formalised donor coordination mechanisms. have a preference for channelling their support The interviewee from KFOS said that there to CSOs through foreign intermediaries or was no centralized coordination, and that it local partners. For example, the SCO has two would not make much sense to have a central coordination mechanism because donors are programmes focusing on civil society: the very different in their structures. Thus, donors Democratic Society Promotion (DSP) and the should coordinate so that they do not obstruct Small Credit Line. The DSP programme, which each other and, if they cannot work in synergy, is SCO’s most important civil society scheme at least be complementary with each other. with a budget of CHF 4 mil (approx. EUR 3.3 In reality, coordination is done in an informal mil) for 4 years, is administered by KCSF. SCO way during bilateral meeting between donors opted to implement this programme through which are organised on an ad hoc basis.243 The KCSF in order to reduce transaction costs. British Embassy interviewee added that the Aid This programme involves both institutional Management Platform database managed by and project grants for advocacy-based and the Ministry of European Integration, the lead in watchdog organisations working in the donor coordination, is not up to date. Moreover, field of transparency, accountability and sectoral donor meetings are not very helpful citizen participation. According to the SCO because the government does not have the official interviewed for this study, they offer capacity to lead these meetings. As a result, institutional grants in order to have ‘real as the KFOS representative suggested, most applicants with their ideas and not to be donor- of the coordination is done informally between driven’.247 The Small Credit Line is a smaller 244 donors. Some respondents also added that grant scheme that is administered directly by there is no substantive donor coordination, the SCO office. and, as the UN interviewee surmised, meetings are focused on information sharing rather than As discussed in the regional section of the coordination.245 According to the interviewee report, donors such as USAID and SIDA from the Norwegian Embassy, coordination have for a long time resorted to foreign of donors is not real coordination – they are intermediaries to implement their civil society usually meetings to see who is doing what. programmes in most WB countries. In Kosovo, The problem is compounded by the fact that USAID does not have a specific programme for priorities become led by the donor agenda, civil society, but it involves CSOs horizontally in not local needs, since there is no government its thematic programmes. As part of the USAID strategic plan to guide donor strategies.246 Forward reform, the USAID office in Kosovo is increasingly channelling support for civil 242 Interview with an official from the British Embassy in Kosovo, from the previous KCSF study. society through local partners. For example, 243 Interview with an official from the KFOS office in the Centre for Social Emancipation (Qendra Kosovo. per Emancipimin Shoqeror - QESH) received 244 Interview with an official from the British Embassy in Kosovo. a USAID grant for a program entitled ‘Kosovo 245 Interview with an official from the UN office in Kosovo, from previous KCSF study. 247 Interview with an official from the SCO office in 246 Interview with an official from the Norwegian Kosovo. Embassy in Kosovo, from previous KCSF study. 56 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans is Ready’ (KIR) that supports local advocacy opening a CfP.250 The UK Embassy is also initiatives to protect the LGBTI community from substantially involved in the development of discrimination and human rights violations. projects which it funds. Before submitting The USAID Mission also made an award to the a formal application, CSOs are requested to Kosovo Democratic Institute (KDI) to support send concept notes on the basis of which the a network of local NGOs, Democracy in Action Embassy makes a pre-selection. The short- (DiA), to monitor the local elections in the listed CSOs are then required to provide fully fall of 2013 and the parliamentary elections developed project proposals which can be anticipated for the fall of 2014.248 With this shift negotiated with the Embassy. Interestingly, in approach, USAID is providing higher grants even the EUOK resorts to this type of procedure to a smaller number of organisations. to allocate funding for civil society. While the EUDs in the WB generally allocate grants to SIDA is also progressively phasing out the CSOs through open calls, the interviewee from use of foreign intermediaries in Kosovo. Their EUOK stated that they increasingly resort to contract with Kvinna till Kvinna is expiring in restricted calls in order to enable more CSOs to 2014, while Civil Rights Defenders and Olof apply for EU funds. Restricted calls allow CSOs Palme Center will be there for another two to put forward concept notes without having years. Through these organisations, SIDA has to submit a full application, which makes it provided both institutional and project grants much easier and more cost-effective for CSOs to Kosovar CSOs. The implementation of civil to apply for EU grants. While they may seem society programmes has been in the hand of to be less competitive, restricted calls can the Swedish intermediaries: they have freedom be advantageous to smaller organisations in selecting both the type of support provided because they involve a smaller initial and the beneficiaries. The interviewee from investment in the application process, thus SIDA stated that they do not meddle in this reducing the barrier to entry for smaller CSOs. process because they trust the implementing organisations.249 Donors in Kosovo thus attach a lot of importance to trust and partnership in the delivery of civil society assistance. While some resort to intermediaries for implementing their assistance, others allocate grants through restricted calls for proposals which requires 7. Macedonia a heavier involvement on the part of the donor. For example, KFOS has a very specific 7.1. Levels of Donor Support procedure for selecting beneficiaries. Before The levels and foci of donor assistance to opening a Call for Proposals (CfP), KFOS Macedonia have changed in line with changing invites a select group of CSOs to participate needs. For example, assistance from SCO, in workshops on specific issues. During which has been present since 1992, changed these workshops, CSO representatives from from humanitarian aid in the 1990s to the region are invited to present successful development cooperation in the 2000s. The examples of projects. KFOS then hires coaches Foundation Open Society Macedonia (FOSM) to help CSOs develop their projects before also initially provided humanitarian assistance. FOSM sought to tackle the isolation of the 248 E-mail communication with an official at USAID country engendered by the international Kosovo. 249 Interview with an official from SIDA Kosovo. 250 Interview with an official from KFOS. Balkan Civic Practices # 11 57 embargo against the Federal Republic of from the Dutch Embassy suggested that the Yugoslavia and the Greek embargo against Chinese and Russian embassies are also Macedonia through humanitarian aid and quite active donors, albeit not in the field of logistical assistance for the export/import of civil society.256 The interviewee from the EUD goods. There was also a big media programme office also confirmed this, by adding that China to break the monopoly of state-controlled is providing substantial loans for transport media. The Foundation’s budget, which mainly infrastructure.257 targets civil society, has been increasing in Although FOSM and SCO said that their recent years. The budget in 2013 was EUR 4.5 involvement in Macedonia is increasing, mil which includes projects funded by other there has been a noticeable withdrawal donors, such as USAID and SDC.251 Apart from of international donors from the country. FOSM, SCO is the only donor whose level of ADA and SIDA have closed their operations financial support in Macedonia has increased, in Macedonia. Another example is the doubling from CHF 40 mil (approx. EUR 33.2 Netherlands, for which Macedonia was on mil) in the 2009-2012 to CHF 80 mil (approx. the list of priority countries for development EUR 66.3 mil) in 2013-2016, due to an increase cooperation aid between 1995 and 2008. of SCO budgets at a global level. The annual budgets during this period were There are also other international donors between five and 15 million EUR, which present in Macedonia. USAID assistance was channelled through IMF or World Bank for civil society began with the Democracy programmes (as budgetary support), as well Network Programme (DemNet), which ran as direct support through the Embassy. The between 1995 and 2004. This was followed assistance was implemented by international by the Civil Society Strengthening Project organisations and CSOs. However, the which preceded the current USAID Civil Society Netherlands deemed that Macedonia had Project.252 The Norwegian Embassy has a ‘graduated’, and was thus no longer eligible for small Embassy Fund from their mission in development cooperation support. The only Belgrade, which totals EUR 3 mil.253 The British remaining financial instrument is the MATRA Embassy runs the same two programmes programme, with an annual budget of less as it does in Serbia: ‘Reuniting Europe’ and than EUR 500,000, which focuses on the rule the ‘Conflict Prevention Programme’. The of law.258 Similarly, Germany has closed its priority areas for the UK Embassy are: public bilateral assistance programme to Macedonia administration reform, rule of law, good in 2008. Since then, Macedonia is only governance and human rights.254 The UN included in the regional projects. Macedonia agencies act as implementers rather than is included in four regional projects and can donors. Most of their budgets come from access financial support from four regional other donors or from state/local authorities.255 funds. There are also two ongoing bilateral Respondents also highlighted the importance projects – ‘Regional and Communal Economic of non-Western donors. The interviewee Development’ and ‘Support to the Secretariat of European Integration’ – that will end in 2014 251 Interview with an official from the Open Society office and 2015 respectively. The current GIZ budget in Macedonia. 252 Interview with an official from the USAID office in is EUR 2 mil annually, but this will decrease in Macedonia. the future (see below). 253 Interview with an official from the Norwegian Embassy in Serbia. 256 Interview with an official at the Dutch Embassy in 254 Interview with an official at the British Embassy in Macedonia. Macedonia. 257 Interview with an official from the EU Delegation 255 Interview with an official at the UN office in office in Macedonia. Macedonia. 258 Interview with an official from the Dutch Embassy in Macedonia. 58 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans

7.2. Motives for Donor Presence the expectation that Macedonia would start the accession negotiations with the EU by 2012.260 As discussed in Part I of the report, Macedonia In a similar vein, the interviewee from GIZ stands out as a country where democratic declared that German assistance will decrease governance and human rights protection in the future because Macedonia is an EU are still a priority on the donor agenda. candidate country and German assistance is Several donor representatives have indeed now being channelled through IPA. expressed concerns about the deteriorating political situation in the country, in response Several interviewees have expressed concern to which some of them have re-focused their over this ‘Europeanization’ of donor assistance programmes from support to EU integration to to civil society in Macedonia. The respondent democracy promotion. For instance, the SCO from FOSM said that the problem is not that representatives stated that the SCO’s budget donors are withdrawing but that EU assistance has increased more than in other countries to civil society is channelled via the state in because it is perceived that governance is Macedonia, and added that there is a certain worsening in the country: level of hypocrisy in Brussels, because the EU draws on civil society to pressure the Macedonia was always a special government while planning and implementing program. Macedonia was always civil society assistance through the regarded as the candidate for EU government.261 The respondent from the UN accession since 2005 and there were office argued that the opening of the IPA funds a lot of hopes with Macedonia but has led to the withdrawal of bilateral donors this is decreasing now, as you know. who used to provide assistance to grassroots Its EU accession never took place, organisations that do not have access to EU its negotiation never took place and funds.262 Among those bilateral donors that governance is regarded as worsening. have remained active in Macedonia, the SCO I think this might have been the representatives were the only ones who could background to increase the development confirm their engagement in the country until or the transition money from Switzerland 2020 or longer. towards Macedonia.259 For a more detailed discussion of donor 7.4. Modalities of Aid Planning agenda in Macedonia, see section 1.3 in part 1 and Programming among Donors of this report. Since the EU is the main actor on the donor scene in Macedonia, it is instructive to first 7.3. Plans for the Future examine the mechanisms of EU aid planning. As mentioned above, a considerable number The planning of EU assistance is based of donors have either withdrawn or cut down on an assessment of the past and current their activities in Macedonia. To a great extent, Enlargement strategies, an analysis of the the phasing out of donor assistance was selected criteria in these strategies, their informed by the conviction that Macedonia achievements and their relevance for the was making good progress in terms of EU coming period. The priorities are identified in integration. A representative of the Swedish Embassy thus suggested that the decision to 260 Phone interview with an official from the Swedish close the SIDA office in Skopje was based on Embassy in Macedonia. 261 Interview with an official from the Open Society office in Macedonia. 259 Interview with an official from the SCO office in 262 Interview with an official from the UN office in Macedonia. Macedonia. Balkan Civic Practices # 11 59 partnership with the government. The main Their awareness of things is not on the interlocutor of the EUD within the Macedonian right level and I will consider that those government is the Secretariat for European NGOs who are bigger in capacity and Affairs (SEA) which is responsible both for knowledge have to be responsible also the process of EU integration and the overall to engage other smaller ones which aid coordination in the country (except for the could contribute when the programming German and French assistance and the IFIs, document is being prepared.265 which goes via the Ministry of Finance). The government has an important role in drafting However, another official at the EUD involved the MIPDs (now Country Strategy Papers) as in IPA II said that the EUD has invited CSOs each ministry is invited to give inputs to the to participate in consultations when they strategy.263 have particular expertise that is helpful to 266 At the moment, the dialogue between the the topic. The FOSM interviewee said that EU and the Macedonian government on the the level of involvement of a donor with civil preparation of strategy does not include civil society often depends on the personality of the society, but this will be required in the future. people in charge. The respondent suggested, The EUD has taken on the responsibility to as an example, that the Ambassador at consult with EU Member States and civil the EUD in Macedonia was very open to society in ‘any step of the programming on any communication with civil society, while the document’. However, these consultations seem current one is exclusively focused on the to consist mostly in asking for feedback on relationship with the Government.267 strategic documents (which is similar to EUD Several donors stated that they identify consultations with implementing agencies and priorities for their programming based on the other donors): EU Progress Report and other EU documents. When we are discussing the strategic For example, the priorities of the Dutch MATRA documents we invite them as our guests programme are defined on the basis of the in the first two rounds, but our aim is EU Progress Report and the political criteria almost all the time, once we have the for the country identified there. However, the first meeting, to do a joint presentation interviewee added that they are amongst few towards the civil society and towards the donors in the region that fund projects on Member States, saying “these is our joint exporting culture from the home country as views, what is your opinion?”264 part of democracy promotion, e.g. Dutch design or Dutch contemporary dance. While the Dutch The EUD added that its attempts at organising Embassy used to consult the government a more formal consultative process have failed for bilateral development assistance, this is due to the lack of interest on the part of CSOs. not the case for the MATRA programme. The According to the interviewee from the EUD, primary consultative process with government there was insufficient interest when the EUD is now taking place through the IPA process, sent a request to form CSO working groups in though the Embassy does informally consult 2012 and, more generally, local organisations with CSOs within their ‘network of contacts’.268 are not aware of the importance of aid planning: 265 Interview with an official at the EUD office in Macedonia. 266 Interview with a second official at the EUD office in Macedonia. 263 Interview with an official at the EUD office in 267 Interview with an official at the FOSM. office in Macedonia. Macedonia.. 264 Interview with an official at the EUD office in 268 Interview with an official at the Dutch Embassy in Macedonia. Macedonia. 60 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans

The SCO representatives stated that they rely By contrast, the UN develops its strategies on Macedonia’s Stabilisation and Accession in cooperation with government and in Agreement (SAA) with the EU as the basis for consultation with civil society. The United their strategy, and that the overall goal of their Nations Development Assistance Framework support is ‘Macedonia becoming a socially (UNDAF) is an overall strategic document inclusive market economy democratic political for all UN agencies, which covers a period system in view of European integration’. The of 4-6 years. Each UN organisation then has SCO organises roundtables with selected CSOs its internal planning which has to fit into the 272 to consult them on Swiss strategies.269 The overall priorities identified in the UNDAF. UK Embassy representatives also stated that It is prepared on the basis of a situation the EU Progress Report is the main basis for analysis and an assessment of the results defining priorities. In addition, all projects are achieved thus far. The UN then engages in broad consultations with government and geared at fulfilling the EU criteria andAcquis in CSOs. However, the UN does not have any specific areas. There is no consultative process, formal procedure for consulting with CSOs at but there are regular contacts with government the strategic level. CSOs are included in the and civil society. In some cases, the Embassy consultations on an ad hoc basis, on the basis conducts ‘stakeholder analysis’.270 of informal contacts and existing partnerships, This ‘top-down’ approach with less input from as well as in project advisory and management local stakeholders also characterises German boards, so they are consulted with regard aid planning. While the German bilateral to the implementation of projects (instead assistance programme used to be developed in of aid programming). Of the UN agencies cooperation with the government, the priorities active in Macedonia, UNICEF has the most of the remaining regional programmes are elaborate process of consultations with local entirely defined by the German government. stakeholders. The respondent from the UN Local actors do not have any say in the office added that, a few years ago, the UN definition of these priorities (not even the local attempted to involve civil society in its strategic GIZ office). This is a top-down approach in planning in a formal manner. However, this which priorities are developed in function of initiative did not take root and the enthusiasm for involving CSOs has been lost.273 German or global development interests. The objective is to prepare the region for the future, USAID employs contractors to carry out to support sustainable development. According assessments. In 2009, they had a US-based to the interviewee from GIZ: company doing a very comprehensive assessment of the democracy sector It’s about development, not that you in Macedonia. They also conducted an extinguish the fire, but that these assessment of the USAID strategy for 2011- development projects are working on a 2015 and an assessment of their previous civil long-term basis, long-term effects, with society programme. The USAID interviewee sustainable effects. As far as German claimed that local stakeholders were assistance, it is not to extinguish a fire extensively consulted in the planning, but there that is now burning, but rather to prevent does not seem to have been any formalised 271 fires from igniting in the first place. consultation procedure.274

269 Interview with an official at the SCO office in 272 Interview with an official at the UN office in Macedonia. Macedonia. 270 Interview with an official at the British Embassy in 273 Interview with an official at the UN office in Macedonia. Macedonia. 271 Interview with an official at the GIZ office in 274 Interview with an official at the USAID office in Macedonia. Macedonia. Balkan Civic Practices # 11 61

The FOSM priorities and activities are defined The GIZ respondent also highlighted that the by the Foundation’s Board, the members of existing mechanism does not function, and which are from Macedonia. The priorities it has not given good results, to the extent defined by the Board are then presented to that even the government is not satisfied with the President of the Open Society Foundation, coordination. The coordination is not well who provides feedback and advice on how documented and the monitoring and evaluation to improve the planning. The priorities are are ‘extremely poor’, because the government revised in function of developments on the is ‘focused at getting something, but not ground. FOSM is very flexible and can easily focused on looking at the implementation adapt to changes in the local context. However, and the impact’. The problem, according to FOSM does not conduct any direct formal the GIZ respondent, is that the Macedonian consultations with civil society actors. Its Government does not have the capacity needs assessment is based on the knowledge to identify needs, negotiate with donors, of board members who are experts in different and follow up with the implementation of fields and who are in permanent contact projects.277 with CSOs. The respondent added that direct, formalised consultation with CSOs would be The interviewee from the Dutch Embassy problematic, because priorities would be driven said that the second mechanism, i.e. sectoral by the narrow interests of grantees.275 working groups, was also deeply flawed in addressing the practicalities of assistance 7.5. Donor Coordination (though they still participate in all of the relevant meetings): The Macedonian SEA is responsible for donor coordination, and is supposed to organise For us it is a little bit difficult to be working groups in specific sectors. There involved in these groups, because are also smaller steering groups within the different donors are sitting there and ministries that are beneficiaries of donor- they all have a different understanding funded projects. However, according to the of the topic or of the framework that we EUD interviewee, the Government has not are discussing. There are groups that engaged with donors since 2009 or 2010: they are organising and we are present in some of them. However, these groups From 2004 to 2009, first, it was very are usually at different levels then simple donor coordinating meetings, what we would like to discuss, because then they engaged into the program we would like to discuss more the based approach working groups, practicalities, and they are usually at the which was also a good thing to start more abstract, very broad policy level.278 and could have, and I still believe that it can, produce quality inputs during The SCO respondent echoed the misgivings programming… This was a good forum about the sectoral working groups: ‘In to discuss [strategies] but unfortunately general, up-to-date coordination … normally it stopped. I don’t know whether they the beneficiary country should take it in their will engage once again; the Secretariat hands. This is done through this sector based is trying, but there is no feasible/visible approach, but it’s not very active, let’s put it like output (...). The government is not putting that’.279 276 much emphasis on donor coordination. 277 Interview with an official at the GIZ office in Macedonia. 275 Interview with an official at the FOSM office in 278 Interview with an official at Dutch Embassy in Macedonia. Macedonia. 276 Interview with an official at the EUD office in 279 Interview with an official at the SCO office in Macedonia. Macedonia. 62 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans

In the absence of formal coordination led by On a more general level, the EU interviewee the Macedonian Government, donors organise said that international donors in Macedonia, informal coordination meetings themselves. even non-Western countries such as China, According to the British Embassy interviewee, see EU and NATO integration as driving aid it is easy to organise such meetings since there objectives, with the former making the EU an are few donors in the country.280 The Dutch agenda setter: Embassy also said that the small number of donors in the country facilitated informal donor We are the leader in the process because coordination: ‘There are not many donors in in the end this is the aim of the country. Macedonia anymore and for example we have Their strategic priorities are EU and a big parliamentary project and there we have NATO integration. The number one an informal donor meeting in Europe. All the priority. This would mean that everybody donors who work on parliament projects else has to be on the same line which is meet regularly’.281 FOSM also holds informal good for us also. At least we don’t have bilateral meetings with various donors.282 any conflict with different objectives for 287 The respondent from GIZ added that there any foreign assistance in the country. are thematic informal coordination meetings However, SCO is also very influential in civil organised by various donors on an ad hoc society, which is acknowledged by the EU basis, which allow avoiding the duplication of interviewee, who stated that they seek to ‘do projects.283 a good match’ with SCO, because the Swiss are providing institutional funding which they In the absence of donor coordination see as an opportunity for smaller CSOs to mechanisms led by the Macedonian prepare for EU projects.288 Moreover, the IPA Government, the EUD took on the task CSF in Macedonia has been put on hold by the of coordinating the work of donors in transfer to the Decentralised Implementation Macedonia284, particularly in the area of civil System (DIS)289, which has affected the society. A second official at the EUD confirmed influence of the EUD in the area of civil society. this, saying that the EUD is organising donor The SCO itself cites two other reasons why it coordination meetings in the area of civil sees itself as an agenda setter in civil society society in cooperation with TACSO. These assistance. First, SCO has a very big civil meetings are attended by USAID, the SCO and society programme (Civicas Mobilitas) with a the Dutch Embassy.285 The SCO interviewee budget of CHF 8 mil (approx. EUR 6.6 mil) for confirmed participation in these meetings, and four years.290 Secondly, SCO participates in the the USAID respondent added that the meetings grants committee which selects the grantees started in 2012 and have become more for the USAID-FOSM Civil Society Programme, systemic, and that TACSO leads in organising despite the fact that SCO does not financially them.286 contribute to this programme. According to the 280 Interview with an official at the British Embassy in SCO, FOSM and USAID involve SCO because Macedonia. the Swiss agency is an important actor in the 281 Interview with an official at the Dutch Embassy in financing of civil society in Macedonia.291 Macedonia. 282 Interview with an official at the FOSM office in Macedonia. 287 Interview with an official at the EUD office in 283 Interview with an official at the GIZ office in Macedonia. Macedonia. 288 Interview with an official at the EUD office in 284 Interview with an official at the EUD office in Macedonia. Macedonia. 289 See: http://cfcd.finance.gov.mk/?page_ 285 Interview with a second official at the EUD office in id=21&lang=en Macedonia. 290 See: http://www.civicamobilitas.org.mk/en/ 286 Interview with a second official at the USAID office in 291 Interview with an official at the SCO office in Macedonia. Macedonia. Balkan Civic Practices # 11 63

7.6. Donor Assistance Many donors in Macedonia are critical of to Civil Society the fact that the CSF is now administered by the government. There is concern among Through its IPA CSF and European Instrument donor representatives that the channelling for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) of EU funds via the state authorities has programmes, the EU is the biggest donor for restricted access to funding to those CSOs civil society in the Western Balkans. These that are dealing with sensitive political and funds are administered by the EUD in all human rights issues and that are critical of countries except Macedonia where the EUD the government. Some donors consider that, has conferred the management of the CSF besides requiring a high financial turnover, the to the state authorities. This decision was EU procedures are so complicated that CSOs brought in 2008/2009 when all the instruments ‘have to be associated with the government under IPA component I were transferred to the in some way’.294 Vladimir Milchin, the FOSM Macedonian Government. Since then, the EUD Executive Director, suggested that EU has provided substantial technical assistance funds are only available to professionalised to the government to manage the CSF (for organisations, which are rather passive when evaluation, monitoring, etc.). there is an urgent need to react to ongoing The transfer of the CSF to the Government issues.295 In response to this, FOSM has created a massive backlog in the allocation of deployed a small grants programme for CSOs funds: only one Call for Proposals for CSF has dealing with pressing societal issues. been launched under IPA (for funds committed In Macedonia, FOSM acts both as a grant- in 2009) and, at the time of the interviews, the giver and an operational organisation. FOSM grants had not been allocated yet. At that point, is thus implementing and co-funding USAID’s CSOs had been waiting for 16 months for the Civil Society Programme whose objective is approval of their proposals by the government, to empower citizens to request government whereas the EUD used to conduct evaluations accountability. USAID chose FOSM as in 8 months and the new EU procedures implementing partner because they have a require these evaluations to be completed longstanding history of being ‘open and critical 292 in 6 months. According to an EUD offical of all kinds of things going on’.296 Besides this backlog is due to the fact that tendering funding monitoring CSOs and civic activism, for CSF is more complicated than any other this programme includes support for thematic tendering done by the government. The EUD coalitions/informal groups centred around has provided substantial technical assistance politically sensitive issues (LGBTI rights, to the government to manage the CSF (for environment, social issues, etc.). In addition, evaluation, monitoring, etc.), but there is a FOSM has two other programmes – ‘Citizens lot of turnover among state officials working for a European Macedonia’ and ‘Inter-Cultural on civil society which is not favourable to the dialogue’ – which cover politically sensitive development of capacities and expertise. The issues (government behaviour, inter-ethnic EUD official also suggested that government relations, identity issues) that cannot be dealt officials cannot commit enough resources and with by bilateral agencies that need to be in time for the evaluation and that the oversight good terms with the government.297 USAID of the government’s procedures by the EUD adds to the length of the process.293 294 Personal interview. 295 Interview with Vladimir Milchin, Executive Director at 292 Interview with an official at the EUD office in FOSM. Macedonia. 296 Interview with an official at the USAID office in 293 Interview with an official at the EUD office in Macedonia. Macedonia. 297 Interview with an official at FOSM. 64 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans also has some other programmes that involve implementing some projects, but that building civil society, but are not specifically aimed at the capacity of civil society is not a priority for developing it, within its democracy portfolio them. (i.e. media, parliament, judicial strengthening, etc.). USAID’s Office of Innovation and Development Alliances (IDEA) in Washington provides funding opportunities for CSOs in the area of Democracy and Governance through the Development Grants Program that is available worldwide including Macedonia. In addition, the U.S. Embassy Democracy 8. Montenegro Commission Grants Program awards grants to CSOs and independent media for projects 8.1. Levels of Donor Support that support the development of democratic Donor presence in the country is quite recent, institutions in Macedonia. either dating back to 2000 (when the MiloŠević- Besides the EU and USAID-FOSM, SCO is led regime fell), or 2006 (when Montenegro a major source of support for civil society gained independence). Most international in Macedonia. The SCO’s ‘Civicas Mobilitas’ donors have either withdrawn completely programme, whose implementation started in from Montenegro, or significantly reduced 2008, will run for another 4 years with a CHF their operations in the country. As a result, 8 mil (approx. EUR 6.6 mil) budget and a focus there are only a few important donors left on constituency building. In this new phase of in Montenegro. Among the multilaterals, the programme, SCO has opted to go for an the EU stands out with an annual budget international implementer (in cooperation with of EUR 38 to 39 mil. The budgets of the UN a local one) because they considered that there agencies, the OSCE and the World Bank are is no expertise in constituency building in the significantly smaller.299 Two UN agencies are country and because this is a very sensitive active in Montenegro: UNICEF and UNDP with issue.298 As described in the regional part of budgets amounting to USD 2 mil (approx. the report, the SCO in Macedonia essentially EUR 1.6 mil) and USD 6 mil (approx. EUR 4.8 supports civil society through institutional mil) respectively. Note, however, that UNDP grant-making. However, it also provides mostly acts as an implementing agency for projects grants to fund short-term activities projects funded by other donors, for which they and initiatives to address issues that could not often compete with local organisations. The be anticipated. UN provides only 10 % of the UNDP’s budget, the rest is funded by the EU, the Montenegrin The British and Dutch Embassies also provide Government and some other donors (mainly some support for civil society. With 17 active the Netherlands, Norway and the UK). The projects at the time of research, the British same applies for the OSCE which also acts as Embassy provided grants to build expertise an implementing agency. Most bilateral donors within civil society. On the other hand, the do not have a direct presence in Montenegro. Dutch Embassy essentially resorted to CSOs The Norwegian and Dutch Embassies for implementing projects within the MATRA administer their assistance to Montenegro programme that focuses on rule of law issues. from Belgrade. Norway’s involvement amounts The GIZ and the UN representatives stated to EUR 2.5 mil, while the Dutch only provide that they also occasionally draw on CSOs for 298 Interview with officials at the Swiss Cooperation 299 Note that the budgetary figures for the OSCE and the Office in Macedonia. World Bank could not be obtained. Balkan Civic Practices # 11 65 assistance through the MATRA programme assistance to Montenegro over the past whose total budget for Serbia and Montenegro 12 years… Its projects have impacted was approximately EUR 670,000 in 2013. The virtually every municipality in the UK assistance is administered by the British country.303 Embassy in Podgorica, whose envelope amounted to GBP 540,000 or approx. EUR 8.2. Motives for Donor Presence 690,000 in 2012/2013 (GBP 520,000 or approx. As in other parts of the Western Balkans, EUR 664,000 in 2011/2012). donor assistance in Montenegro focuses on As mentioned above, several donors have supporting the EU integration process and withdrawn from Montenegro. At the time of building effective democratic governance. research, SIDA and ADA had already closed The interviewee from the German Embassy their operations in Montenegro. The Open explicitly stated those objectives in the Society Foundation (OSF) also closed its office following terms: in Montenegro, though CSOs from Montenegro still have access to the OSI global funding For us it is quite easy: we want to see schemes.300 USAID prematurely closed its Montenegro in the EU as a democratically Good Governance programme, which was consolidated and an economically supposed to last until 2015, in 2013. This was performing state. As simple as that. part of a wider scaling back by USAID, which I know it is very general, but it is very decided in 2012 to close its offices in nine topical as well, and the democratic countries. However, at the time of research, consolidation process, there we can see there were still a few ongoing American what our priorities are, and ours is not projects (the Criminal Justice and Civil Society the functioning of the parliament, and it Programme and a programme of support to is not elections, they function fairly well. state institutions) for which the combined It is the rule of law and it is the rule of budget amounted to USD 500,000 (approx. administration as part of the judiciary, it EUR 399,000), as well as the Democracy is the containment of corruption, and it is Commission Small Grants (DCSG) administered also a better record for the fight against by the Embassy. 301 USAID announced the end organised crime.304 of its programmes on its website as follows: 8.3. Plans for the Future The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) will mark Those donors that remain active in Montenegro the conclusion of its assistance in do not have clear exit strategies. The Montenegro with a June 12 [2013] respondent from UNICEF stated that they do celebration ... The June 12 Gala signifies not have plans to withdraw from Montenegro that Montenegro is on the path toward in the near future. In the long run, their European Union accession following presence will depend on the progress made significant economic, good governance, on the ‘critical parts of the human rights 305 and democratic strides. USAID has agenda’ that are relevant to UNICEF. The provided USD 243 mil302 worth of Germans will also remain in Montenegro

300 Interview with an official at the Open Society office in 303 See: http://www.usaid.gov/montenegro/news- Serbia. information/press-releases/usaid-celebrates- 301 Interview with an official at the East-West success-programs-end Management Institute in Montenegro. Note that the 304 Interview with an official at the German Embassy in Criminal Justice and Civil Society Programme was Montenegro. due to close in August 2014. 305 Interview with an official at the UNICEF office in 302 Approx. EUR 194 mil. Serbia. 66 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans for the next few years. GIZ has been present projects are either funded by other donors (i.e. in Montenegro since 2001, and it intends the EU) or by the Montenegrin Government, but to remain in the country until 2017 at the all of the activities need to fit in the strategic earliest. However, although it has some priorities defined in the CPD and the CPAP. The involvement in Montenegro, GIZ’s presence Government, other donors, and civil society has been scaled down since Germany are consulted in this process through various closed its bilateral development assistance forums.308 UNICEF also develops a CPD and programme in Montenegro in 2011. This is a CPAP which is then sent for approval to the because Montenegro became an EU candidate Executive Board in New York. This is done in country and entered the process of accession cooperation with the government on the basis negotiations. GIZ re-oriented its activities of a situation analysis, which is a key element towards EU projects and projects co-financed in the planning process. Like UNDP, UNICEF by other donors. There is only one bilateral consults with civil society in aid programming. project left managed by GIZ and several The UNICEF respondent stated that they regional projects involving Montenegro in the ‘consult quite widely’ with CSOs and that they fields of biodiversity and climate change.306 KfW are ‘always open to their ideas’, but admitted has a much stronger presence, but it only gives that these consultations are ‘a bit ad hoc’ as loans (not grants), mostly for infrastructure there is no formal mechanism for involving projects in the energy sector. The German them in the planning.309 Embassy has access to a regional fund called The priorities of German cooperation also ‘Stability Pack for South-Eastern Europe’ involve the authorities in Podgorica, and are through which it can fund CSOs, though this decided bilaterally between the governments of is not targeted in any way towards CSOs (see Germany and Montenegro. GIZ then writes the below).307 projects within the set priorities. Before writing the project, GIZ usually carries an assessment 8.4. Modalities of Aid Planning which includes consultations with the most and Programming among Donors relevant stakeholders. As mentioned above, The modalities of aid planning and the levels since bilateral cooperation has come to an end, of involvement of civil society in this process most assistance is regional, so the projects vary between donors. The UN agencies are in line with regional needs. By contrast, identify priorities for aid programming by the programming for British assistance is coordinating with the Government. The UNDP determined more by London than by local has a Country Program Document (CPD) on consultation. The programme strategies are the basis of which a Country Program Action defined by the FCO. The Embassy then develops Plan (CPAP) is developed in cooperation with a ‘Country Business Plan’ within these broad 310 the government. Programmes and projects priorities set in London. Although there are then developed either on the basis of seem to be avenues for consultation with needs assessments carried out by UNDP, local stakeholders, the respondent from which systematically carries out analyses of TACSO claimed that donors are imposing the situation on the ground (through various their priorities on CSOs, and argued that the ‘development reports’), or on the basis of the only way to address this problem is for the priorities identified by the government. UNDP 308 Interview with an official at the UNDP office in Montenegro. 306 Interview with an official at the GIZ office in 309 Interview with an official at the UNICEF office in Montenegro. Montenegro. 307 Interview with an official at the German Embassy in 310 Interview with an official at the British Embassy in Montenegro. Montenegro. Balkan Civic Practices # 11 67 state to take the lead in defining priorities German, and American Embassies. There are in cooperation with civil society. However, also individuals in charge of donor coordination the respondent conceded that there is a lack within each ministry, and donors exchange of capacity for planning, programming and internal progress reports among themselves. implementing among local stakeholders, and Government ministries occasionally organise claimed that it would be better for TACSO to meetings on specific areas.314 However, there work on building these capacities rather than is no donor coordination specifically for civil delivering training for CSOs that are isolated society assistance. The interviewee from and do not have access to funding.311 the EUD said that donor coordination in civil society is quite limited ‘not because it’s not Although there are structured procedures in our interest, but because there are basically place for international donor aid planning, no other donors working in civil society one respondent suggested that how a donor development here’.315 The interviewee from organisation is run and what programmes UNICEF said that the Government is trying are prioritised ultimately depends on the to create a sectoral mechanism for donor individuals in charge. As an example, the coordination within the framework of IPA: interviewee described how two different chiefs at UNDP supposedly had two different We are trying to build more of what you approaches towards political issues, with one call a “sector-based approach” in some engaging in politically sensitive anti-corruption key areas that supports the law sector activities that were critical of the government, and that supports public administration and the other choosing to stay away from reform which is beginning to bring such activities in order not to alienate the donors together but it has to be led by Montenegrin Government. The interviewee government. Government is trying to added that the nature of donor coordination bring this together and it is primarily is also affected by informal personal contacts done through the framework of the IPA amongst individuals working in donor process.316 agencies.312 In addition to the high-level and sectoral donor coordination, the interviewee from UNDP said 8.5. Donor Coordination that there was also coordination at the project The process of EU integration is an important level, when donors participate in project boards factor in Montenegro, so it is not surprising as full members or observers, which indirectly that the EU, as the primary donor, has taken allows for coordination.317 the lead in organising coordination meetings on Many of the respondents felt that donor key issues.313 The interviewee from the British coordination was not as complex in Embassy suggested that the EUD has taken Montenegro compared with other places in the lead in donor coordination, because there the Western Balkans, since there were so were some issues with project duplication few donors left in the country that donors in the past. The Delegation organises donor knew what their counterparts in the country coordination meetings on a monthly basis, were doing. Moreover, many of the donors which are attended by officials from the British, 314 Interview with an official at the British Embassy in Montenegro. 311 Interview with an official at the TACSO office in 315 Interview with an official at the EUD office in Montenegro. Montenegro. 312 Interview with an official at the East-West 316 Interview with an official at the UNICEF office in Management Institute in Montenegro. Montenegro. 313 Interview with an official at the UNICEF office in 317 Interview with an official at the UNDP office in Montenegro. Montenegro. 68 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans administer their programmes from Belgrade representative in Podgorica, the priorities of and do not have a physical presence in the CSF programme are set in consultation Montenegro. According to an official at with local CSOs and they are usually vague so the German Embassy, ‘Recently we had that they could accommodate different types donor coordination in the field of corruption of activities.321 Nevertheless, some donors prevention or corruption-related projects. have criticised the EU for the high financial There it boiled down to five donors or so, not requirements it imposes on beneficiaries, the huge a huge number of projects being run in length of its procedures and the unrealistic the country… But you know, more or less, expectations attached to project realisation. what the others are doing, like I said, it is Besides the EU, the German Embassy in very small’, and later added, ‘I know all my Podgorica provides small grants to CSOs counterparts … and I know more or less what within the ‘Stability Pack for South-Eastern they do, and I exchange with them on a regular Europe’ programme. The priorities of the basis. Also, the projects that are run here have programme are set in Berlin, but they are visibility; it is so small that you get invited to broad enough to accommodate a wide range all these closing or inauguration events, so of projects. The Embassy administers these you have a rough idea, actually a pretty good grants through a rolling call. CSOs usually get idea, of what is being done here’.318 Thus, it in contact with the Embassy before applying is sufficient to have informal coordination for funding which is aimed at projects for up amongst donors.319 to a year, without the possibility of renewal. However, the interviewee from TACSO took According to a German Embassy official, a more critical line and was convinced that the flexibility of this programme allows the donors did not have a genuine interest in local Embassy to fund short-term initiatives in needs, but rather that they had conflicting response to un-anticipated issues.322 The UNDP interests with each other, and as a result, also provides project grants to CSOs working donor coordination would ultimately be in the field of social inclusion – 13-15 per cent unsuccessful.320 of UNDP’s annual budget goes to civil society. In this case, CSOs participate to varying degree 8.6. Donor Assistance in the definition of priorities depending on the to Civil Society projects. The grants are generally allocated through open calls for applications, although As a result of reduced donor presence, funding sometimes the organisations that participated for civil society in Montenegro is relatively in the definition of the project are given priority limited. The main source of project funding for in their implementation.323 Finally, Norway and CSOs is the EUD which administers the CSF the Netherlands support CSOs in Montenegro and EIDHR programmes. In 2013, the CSF’s through programmes that are administered by budget amounted EUR 1 mil, while the EIDHR their embassies in Belgrade (see section on budget for 2012 and 2013 (combined) was EUR Serbia). 900,000. With projects ranging between EUR 100,000-200,000, there are about 5 beneficiary The remaining donors exclusively support organisations per year. According to a EUD CSOs by engaging them in the implementation of projects. As mentioned above, one third 318 Interview with an official at the German Embassy in 321 Interview with an official at the EU Delegation officein Montenegro. Montenegro. 319 Interview with an official at the UNDP office in 322 Interview with an official at the German Embassy in Montenegro. Montenegro. 320 Interview with an official at the TACSO office in 323 Interview with an official at the UNDP office in Montenegro. Montenegro. Balkan Civic Practices # 11 69 of the projects funded by the UK Embassy Foundation primarily focused its activities on are implemented by CSOs, mainly in civil society development in a broader sense, the field of fight against corruption and i.e., the creation of independent, non-state, investigative journalism.324 UNICEF, UNDP entities. The foundation also aimed at tackling and GIZ occasionally work with CSOs on the consequences of war and international the implementation of activities that fit into isolation. In the 2000s, the Fund for an Open their programmes and objectives. This type Society in Serbia (FOS) re-focused its activities of cooperation is established either at the towards the building of democratic institutions initiative of the donor who commissions and the process of Europeanization, but work products or services through open bids for with minorities has also been a constant which CSOs apply, or at the initiative of some priority. According to the interviewee from CSO which approach donors with ideas for FOS, one of their biggest successes has been projects. Nevertheless, for these donors, to create a discourse in which Europeanization the lead partners are generally government is not just limited to EU accession, but involves institutions. The role of CSOs is limited to a normative change in societal values.326 participating in consultative processes or SCO started its operations in Serbia in 1991 providing specific products or services (i.e. in response to the refugee crisis. Today, training, research, etc.). the primary focus of Swiss cooperation is support for Serbia’s EU integration process.327 In terms of Dutch development assistance, MATRA was conceptualised as a programme promoting social transformation after the fall of communism. The programme had 12-13 themes until 2009, when it was re-focused on supporting EU integration in the area of the 9. Serbia rule of law.328 British assistance also started in the 1990s with humanitarian projects. Between 9.1. Levels of Donor Support 2000 and 2010, DFID focused on the reform of There has been a long-standing engagement the social security. by international agencies in Serbia, with the In the post-2000 period, USAID has provided first offices established during the Socialist assistance to civil society in Serbia since 2001 regime. Yugoslavia was the first European through implementing partners.329 Germany country to host a UNICEF office, which was started its assistance programmes in Serbia established in 1947. In the 1990s, UNICEF in 2000.330 The Balkan Trust for Democracy had a major presence in response to the (BTD) was established in 2003 by the German humanitarian crisis. After 2000, it has acted Marshall Fund of the United States, Charles as a development agency rather than a Stewart Mott Foundation, and USAID with a humanitarian organisation.325 There were a trust fund of USD 36 mil (approx. EUR 28.8 number of international donors that set up mil) for a ten-year period that expired in June missions in Yugoslavia in the 1990s. The Open 2013. Out of this USD 36 mil, USD 28.5 mil Society Foundation (OSF) established an (approx. EUR 22.8 mil) has been disbursed in office in Belgrade in June 1991 for the whole (Socialist) Yugoslavia. During the 1990s, the 326 Interview with an official at the FOS office in Serbia. 327 Interview with an official at the SCO office in Serbia. 324 Interview with an official at the UK Embassy in 328 Interview with an official at the Dutch Embassy in Montenegro. Serbia. 325 Interview with an official at the UNICEF office in 329 Interview with an official at the ISC office in Serbia. Serbia. 330 Interview with an official at the GIZ office in Serbia. 70 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans grants. Between 2012 and 2013, their budget it’s difficult really to say … You see the figures, decreased by 50 per cent, but BTD plans to but this is all the public stuff, so to say. What continue its activities for another 5-7 years goes really into civil society … I think it’s really, with a reduced budget. The ERSTE Foundation really hard to find out’.333 The TACSO Resident was created in 2005 with three target areas: Advisor surmised that the perception of donor Culture, Social Development, and Europe. withdrawal was due to the fact that there has During this period, EU support, which is the been a drastic increase in the population of most substantial in monetary terms, has been CSOs, which has increased the demand for conducted through two previous programmes: financial support.334 CARDS between 2000 and 2006; and IPA However, there is no doubt that some between 2007 and 2013. The EU’s annual international agencies have left Serbia. ADA assistance to Serbia totals EUR 196 million, of closed its Belgrade office in 2012. DFID closed which 180 million will be administered by the its programmes in Serbia in 2010. There are Serbian Government from 2014. Additionally, two programmes left that are managed by the the EIDHR budget for Serbia is EUR 1.2 mil per Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), with year, and the CSF budget is EUR 2 mil. very limited funding. The Re-uniting Europe In terms of donor presence, there is a programme is specifically aimed at preparing perception among some respondents that pre-accession countries for the process of American and European agencies are leaving negotiations with the EU, and assistance from Serbia. For example, the interviewee from the the Conflict Prevention programme is available ERSTE Foundation said: ‘We see all around that in Serbia, Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia. many Americans and also many Europeans DFID had a budget ranging between GBP players leave the region so this is not a good 2 and 8 mil (approx. EUR 2.6 mil and 10.2 thing to happen because to my opinion there mil) per year, whilst the current budget for is still a lot of work to do.’331 The respondent the British assistance is about GBR 1-1.5 from the World Bank added that the German, mil (approx. EUR 1.3-1.9 mil).335 The Dutch Swedish, and Norwegian assistance have Embassy closed its development cooperation significantly decreased, and the Austrians programmes in Serbia and Montenegro in have left altogether. After the global financial 2009. The only programme left is the MATRA crisis, donor countries have also had financial programme for EU candidate countries. The problems, which affects their ability to provide budget for Serbia and Montenegro for 2013 assistance.332 was EUR 670,000. This is essentially for civil society.336 As mentioned above, the BTD annual On the other hand, some donors believe budget was decreased by 50 per cent in the that those claims about donor withdrawal past year, and is now approximately USD 1 are unsubstantiated. One reason is that it is mil (approx. EUR 800,000) for 2013-2014. difficult to reliably pinpoint the level of foreign BTD ended its country activities in Croatia, donor assistance in the country. According to Bulgaria, Romania, and Moldova (though it the respondent from GIZ, for civil society, it is still runs regional programmes). Nevertheless, difficult to ascertain ‘what is available in terms BTD plans to stay in the Western Balkans of assistance or budget, or means provided. until 2018 or 2020 with a reduced budget, Because, I mean, I don’t even know if Soros foundation, which is quite active, publicizes 333 Interview with an official at the GIZ office in Serbia. figures how much money he spends here. … So 334 Interview with an official at the TACSO office in Serbia. 335 Interview with an official from the British Embassy in 331 Interview with an official at the ERSTE Stiftung. Serbia. 332 Interview with an official at the World Bank office in 336 Interview with an official from the Dutch Embassy in Serbia. Serbia. Balkan Civic Practices # 11 71 which they hope will be around USD 1.3- Balkan countries. But it’s a separate 1.4 mil (approx. EUR 1-1,1 mil) on a yearly allocation for the Embassy to manage 337 basis. The OSCE provides very targeted for smaller projects. The Embassy Fund support to civil society through its projects, applies to all three countries, while but it is a small amount: ‘We have won SIDA the civil society funding mechanism funded project on security sector reform and has so far been limited to Serbia in a we have very targeted call for proposals for testing period, and we are continuously CSOs working in that area, coming up with assessing whether to expand, also to concrete proposals in that area. And this is, comprise Montenegro and Macedonia’.340 I think, EUR 8,000 to 10,000 for six months or something. So, it’s really very small’.338 The total allocations for Norwegian assistance UNDP has gone from largely being a donor to are: EUR 9 mil for Serbia; EUR 3 mil for an implementing agency. For example, since Macedonia; and EUR 2.5 mil for Montenegro. 2012, the UNDP is implementing projects The Swiss parliament has voted an increase funded by local municipalities in Serbia. While in from 0.4% to 0.5% of Switzerland’s these municipalities used to be the recipients GDP on a global level, which also applies to of funds provided by UNDP and other donors, the Western Balkans.341 The total funding for they are now funding projects implemented by Serbia has increased from CHF 60 mil (approx. the UNDP. The municipalities identify priorities EUR 49.8 mil) for the period 2009-2013 to CHF and participate in the implementation of these 75.5 mil (approx. EUR 62.6 mil) for the period projects with the support of the UNDP, which 2014-2017. provides assistance.339 Despite the evidence of donor withdrawal, 9.2. Motives for Donor Presence the research indicated that the Norwegian In terms of the motivations for donor and Swiss assistance has actually been assistance, most respondents identified increasing. Norway has considerably scaled support for the EU accession process in up the assistance delivered by the Embassy Serbia. For example, the Dutch embassy’s in Belgrade, which is responsible for Serbia, MATRA programme is aimed at helping Montenegro, and Macedonia. The Western pre-accession countries on their path to Balkans section in the Ministry of Foreign EU integration.342 Supporting the accession Affairs in Oslo administers the bulk of the process in Serbia is a goal even amongst Norwegian development assistance, but the Embassy in Belgrade administers the Embassy bilateral donors – Switzerland and Norway Fund and the Civil Society Fund. According to – that are not part Member States of the EU. the interviewee from the Norwegian Embassy: According to the interviewee from SCO, ‘even though we [Switzerland] are not members of ‘We are this year heading towards, the European Union, we believe that Serbia or we have allocated this year three is certainly a part of Europe and we support million dollars, two and a half million the institutions in a variety of sectors’.343 Euros approximately. It may increase. The Norwegian respondent added that ‘the It’s a part of the same funding source overall objective of our support to Serbia is to for cooperation in and with the Western 340 Interview with an official from the Norwegian Embassy in Serbia. 337 Interview with an official from the BTD office in 341 Interview with an official at the Swiss Cooperation Belgrade. Office in Serbia. 338 Interview with an official from the OSCE office in 342 Interview with an official at the Dutch Embassy in Serbia. Serbia. 339 Interview with an official from the UNDP office in 343 Interview with an official at the Swiss Cooperation Serbia. Office in Serbia. 72 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans stimulate the EU integration or the integration in Romania and Bulgaria despite the fact that into the regional European structures. So this these countries are EU Member States, and is the overarching objective of what we are Switzerland has extended its programmes in doing’.344 There were, however, other motives Serbia for another four years. Nevertheless, expressed by the respondents. For example, the levels of Swiss presence will also depend the representative of the UK Embassy stated on the availability of EU funds.347 Similarly, that the Embassy’s goal was to advance British UNDP’s presence is strongly influenced by political and economic interests and promote EU accession. UNDP sees its intervention as British values.345 complementary to the EU accession process and it usually maintains a presence until a The motives of some donors reflected a wider candidate country has joined the EU. There regional or global strategy. The presence of are even some EU countries where UNDP has multi-lateral agencies such as the World Bank maintained a reduced presence.348 or the UN agencies is part of global strategies, and the EU’s EIDHR programme is also a Some donors also cited the financial crisis global programme. The respondent from the and changes in economic circumstances as ERSTE Foundation highlighted their long-term potential factors affecting donor plans for the geographic focus: future. On the one hand, the UK Foreign Office funds have been maintained at the same level, All our activities are focusing in Central despite the financial crisis and the austerity and Eastern Europe. This is our measures introduced in Serbia.349 However, geography; we are not discussing every the interviewee from the ERSTE Foundation year should we go to Asia or Africa. described how the financial crisis has affected Central Eastern Europe is our main their activities: target, geographically so to say, so this is where we started to work and this is The financial situation isn’t backing the where we are going to continue…346 foundation, you can imagine that we are affected by all these banking crises 9.3. Plans for the Future and economic crises, so our budgets don’t grow; we have a kind of stagnation No donor is planning to close its activities in of the budget and with these limited Serbia in the coming years. However, this may resources we are doing our core projects change depending on various factors. Levels in the three program lines - culture, of support and decisions to withdraw are social responsibility and Europe - and determined by the status of EU integration in we had a fourth branch so to say, the Serbia, economic circumstances, availability grant clearing activities, which we had to of alternative sources of funding in the decrease over the years because of these country, and donor strategies and priorities budget restrictions.350 at the global level. For example, BTD decided to withdraw from Croatia because its grant The FOS respondent put forward a third reason schemes were ‘a drop in the sea’ compared to for changing levels of support: changes in the EU funds that are now available there. GIZ levels of funding in the country from other withdrew from other East European countries sources. FOS has had a stable budget since once they entered the EU. SCO remains present 2003. Its future presence will depend on 344 Interview with an official at the Norwegian Embassy 347 Interview with an official at the SCO office in Serbia. in Serbia. 348 Interview with an official at the UNDP office in Serbia. 345 Interview with an official at the British Embassy in 349 Interview with an official at the British Embassy in Serbia. Serbia. 346 Interview with an official at the ERSTE Stiftung. 350 Interview with an official at the ERSTE Foundation. Balkan Civic Practices # 11 73 social developments in Serbia, which are programming. FOS has full autonomy in closely related to EU accession, as well as the determining its priorities and strategies availability of alternative sources of funding in Serbia. OSI has a global programme (i.e. EU, state funding). Nevertheless, FOS is administered from New York that runs in not planning to reduce its presence in the next parallel for which Serbian organisations are 2-3 years.351 also eligible to the extent that they fit in the goals and priorities of the global programme.353 Finally, the interviewees from the Dutch SCO has recently adopted a decentralised Embassy and SIDA cited changes in global approach to aid planning by giving more strategies that can potentially affect levels freedom to local offices in the development of of support in Serbia. The Dutch government strategies. Strategies are developed in three closed its ODA programmes in Serbia and the phases. First, SCO makes an evaluation of Balkans as part of a broader re-organisation the previous strategy and its implementation, of Dutch ODA and as a result of diminishing which yields an initial set of recommendations funds. The interviewee from SIDA commented on how to develop a new strategy. SCO then that, for example, the decision to withdraw carries out a ‘partner’s hearing process’ which from Montenegro was done as a calculation involves government, CSOs and other donors of ‘give and take’, since SIDA is decreasing its with which SDC has cooperated. Further countries of operation, so it is necessary to information is gathered through participation prioritise globally. in the donor coordination meetings organized There is a certain pressure to decrease the by the government. Finally, the SCO in Serbia number of countries and there is always a look makes a strategy proposal to the headquarters at which ones would be less strategic for us at which revise the strategy and recommend this moment, so it is a political decision also. changes.354 UNICEF also has a relatively Because Swedish Development Cooperation is autonomous approach. It develops a five-year spread all over the world, there a is very strong CPAP in consultation with local stakeholders focus on Africa and the poorest countries, so involved in child protection. This Action Plan there is always this political “give and take” [of] defines the thematic areas of action, which which countries should stay, which countries is the basis on which UNICEF develops its should go. And the focus and priorities are programmes and activities. primarily on Africa, the poorest countries, so In contrast to the autonomous approaches that [is] why.352 outlined above, some donors follow a more top-down approach in programming 9.4. Modalities of Aid Planning their activities, with the home country or and Programming among Donors headquarters having a significant role. The modalities of aid planning vary The priorities of the MATRA programme considerably between donors in terms of: are entirely defined by the Dutch foreign levels of input from headquarters and local ministry. Local actors do not participate in offices in developing strategies; consultation defining the priorities of the programme. with local stakeholders (government and civil Nevertheless, the Dutch Embassy does have society) in defining priorities; and consultation full independence in the selection of projects with other donors. that it will support.355 The ERSTE Foundation’s strategies are internally developed by the Some donors active in Serbia have a significant amount of autonomy in determining aid 353 Interview with an official at the FOS office in Serbia. 354 Interview with an official at the SCO office in Serbia. 355 Interview with an official at the Dutch Embassy in 351 Interview with an official at the FOS office in Serbia. Serbia. 352 Interview with an official at the SIDA office in Serbia. 74 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans foundation’s advisory board, which includes to be approved by the Serbian Government.361 CSO representatives from the region.356 The World Bank office in Belgrade makes The priorities of the EU-supported EIDHR a proposal that is then refined in separate programme are defined at the global level, and consultations with government and civil CSOs from Serbia are only eligible for one out society. The strategy is then sent to the Board of five priorities of this programme.357 In the for approval. case of the OSCE, the field missions propose SIDA, BTD, and the EU CSF apply a more programmes that fit the priorities established ‘regional’ approach in aid programming instead by the OSCE member states at the highest of focusing on country-based strategies. BTD level. These priorities are static, so there has has a set of priorities for all the countries been no change in thematic areas.358 In the in the region. These priorities have not case of the UK, the FCO establishes global changed in recent years.362 The EU’s CSF is a and regional priorities and sub-priorities. The regional programme for the IPA countries. It Embassy sends a ‘results offer’ to the FCO, consists of a three-year strategy within which which does not consist in a set of projects, priorities are defined at the national level.363 but a set of goals and the envisaged means The interviewee from SIDA outlined how they to achieve them. The FCO selects a number of formulate a strategy for the Western Balkans: objectives that the Embassy will follow and the Embassy then develops projects.359 The broad This was a very broad participatory objectives and priorities of German assistance process. Those areas were the result of are agreed at the highest level between the certain instructions that we received from German and the Serbian governments. GIZ is Sweden, but also as result of discussions then asked to develop a programme that would with local actors here, in the first place meet these priorities through consultation is the SEIO, Serbian EU Integration with local stakeholders. In some cases, local Office, but also in much broader terms stakeholders (municipalities, CSOs) approach with other ministries, institutions, with the Embassy with their own initiatives. other donors, with civil society also. (...) Nonetheless, there is some flexibility in the So, that is it. We do not call it a regional field. GIZ has substantial flexibility in the strategy; it is the strategy for the region. allocation of funds, which allows it to adapt Do you see the difference? It is build up to changing circumstances. Projects are not by the bilateral or national component designed to last for only 2-3 years; they last as and added on; in some areas we do long as it takes to reach the set objectives.360 see that there is an extra advantage in working with the regional approach.364 An alternative approach used by some donors is more bottom-up and involves Some donors carry out consultations with local stakeholders in determining priorities. local stakeholders in a more selective manner, UNDP develops a draft strategy for 5 years in which often involves close cooperation cooperation with the government. This draft with government and different degrees of is sent to other donors and development consultation with civil society. As mentioned agencies for feedback before being approved above, UNDP develops their draft strategy in in New York. All the UNDP’s programmes need cooperation with the government, but they do also occasionally consult with CSOs – mainly 356 Interview with an official at ERSTE Stiftung. 357 Interview with an official at the EUD office in Serbia. 361 Interview with an official at the UNDP office in Serbia. 358 Interview with an official at the OSCE office in Serbia. 362 Interview with an official at the BTD office in Serbia. 359 Interview with an official at the British Embassy in 363 Interview with a second official at the EUD office in Serbia. Serbia. 360 Interview with an official at the GIZ office in Serbia. 364 Interview with an official at the SIDA office in Serbia. Balkan Civic Practices # 11 75

CSOs with which UNDP has cooperated – for driven’.370 By contrast, SIDA does not conduct their expertise.365 As part of their ‘partner’s direct consultations with CSOs, but it relies on hearing process’, the SCO draws heavily on the Swedish implementing organisations who the Needs Assessment carried out by the provide input from local partners. According to Serbian government. SCO considers that the the respondent from SIDA: Serbian Government has the duty to consult We [SIDA] are working with three main with local stakeholders since it is in charge of or larger Swedish CSOs, that we have aid planning and donor coordination. The Swiss a kind of a framework agreement agency only consults with CSOs with which with them, on program agreement, so it has an established cooperation or which they in turn are collaborating with... are deemed to be able to provide expertise, You know each of them has between because it does not have the capacity to carry 10 and 15 national counterparts. So out broad consultations with 100-200 people.366 through them, I would say we hope to For the programming of German aid, every be receiving the inputs and comments project has a ministry in the background. GIZ from their partners. So, it is selective and only involves CSOs once the project is defined indirect consultation in that sense. We in cooperation with government - only those do also have direct contact with them, on CSOs relevant for the project are involved.367 monitoring and follow up sometimes, but Norway draws directly on Serbian institutions it is mostly through the Swedish NGOs for planning and administering its aid in that we work371. Serbia. The Norwegians have two employees sitting in the SEIO. One employee conducts The research found that the EU has the most programming in close cooperation with the institutionalised form of cooperation with different ministries and SEIO, and the other is local stakeholders. The planning of IPA is responsible for monitoring and evaluation.368 quite specific because it involves substantial UNICEF conducts individual consultations with involvement of the Serbian Government in the selected CSOs as well as focus groups with definition of priorities and occurs in several organisations dealing directly or indirectly with phases. First, SEIO carries out a ‘needs children. UNICEF has a strategic partnership assessment’ and a gap analysis. Second, the with the Network of Organisations for Children Multi-annual Indicative Planning Document of Serbia (MODS), a network of organisations (MIPD) is developed in Brussels on the basis dealing with children, which UNICEF supports. of these analyses and other sources such as UNICEF also consults with organisations the country Progress Reports. Third, sector outside the MODS network, as well as with groups which include government, donors and media and business.369 FOS defines its the EUD are established on the basis of the priorities through a permanent dialogue MIPD. These sector groups discuss the ‘project with CSOs and through an assessment of sector fiches’ which include the entire sector the project proposals that it receives from through different projects. All national IPA CSOs throughout the year. According to the components are developed in cooperation with the SEIO and the corresponding ministries. The interviewee from FOS, this allows CSOs to put priorities and programmes for civil society are forward their ideas instead of being ‘donor- developed in consultation with local CSOs.372 These meetings are used to present EU 365 Interview with an official at the UNDP office in Serbia. 366 Interview with an official at the SCO o ffice in Serbia. programmes to the government and donors 367 Interview with an official at the GIZ office in Serbia. 368 Interview with an official at SEIO. 370 Interview with an official at the FOS office in Serbia. 369 Interview with an official at the UNICEF office in 371 Interview with an official at the SIDA office in Serbia. Serbia. 372 Interview with an official at the EUD office in Serbia. 76 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans and get feedback. These sectoral working One of the interviewees from the EUD groups, which are attended by some CSO highlighted a number of criticisms regarding representatives, are also used as a platform the running of SEKO. The mechanism is for donors to exchange information on their biased because some CSOs are more active activities so that there are no overlaps. After than others, so SEKO may not accurately the consultation process, the MIPD is sent reflect the needs of society. Moreover, the for approval to the EU Member States, a fact that CSOs are divided in seven thematic process that takes 7-8 months. According to groups leaves many themes out of the scope one of the interviewees from the EUD, the EU of planning. To address this shortcoming, the programmes are very rigid: the priorities are EUD has developed a project with the Office for set by the MIPD and the Delegation does not Cooperation with Civil Society which aims to have much room for manoeuvre. If something promote the role of civil society in aid planning is not mentioned in the MIPD, it will not and EU negotiations, in order to advance be financed. For example, the EU stopped CSOs participation in SEKO. However, the supporting the healthcare system in Serbia respondent from the EUD suggested that local in 2011 because this sector was considered CSOs do not have the capacity to participate in too corrupt, despite the fact that the EU had aid planning. For example, CSOs often do not channelled significant funds to the Serbian make a distinction between themes (i.e. the healthcare system until then.373 The respondent fight against corruption) and type of activities 375 from the EUD also added that, from January (i.e. capacity building). Another interviewee 2014, the Serbian Government administered from the EUD raised the concern that it is IPA as a result of the implementation of DIS. problematic to include CSOs in aid planning, However, the civil society programmes will since there would be problems with legitimacy remain in the remit of the EUD, because the and a conflict of interest for organisations Delegation considers that support for civil to decide priorities whilst receiving financial 376 society in Serbia is done according to political assistance from the same programmes. lines.374 The interviewee from Civic Initiatives, one of In terms of IPA civil society planning, SEIO the SEKO leading organisations, also said that established Sector Civil Society Organizations there were a number of shortcomings with 377 (SEKO) mechanism in 2011. This was SEKO : established through a project funded by SIDA the draft documents are sent on short and the UK. The SEKO mechanism consists notice, the deadlines are short and the of seven thematic groups. Each thematic documents are in English which prevents platform is administered by some ‘leading many organisations from giving feedback. CSOs’ which have been selected by SEIO. All Some platforms are too big (e.g. the one of the leading CSOs are established Belgrade- on Civil Society, Media and Culture has based organisations. The functioning of SEKO 180 organisations), so it is very difficult to consists of SEIO sending IPA draft documents organise genuine consultations; to the different platforms for feedback. The there are no funds for organising meetings. SEKO mechanism is exclusively used for 375 Interview with a second official at the EUD office in EU funds, other donors do not draw on this Serbia. mechanism for consultations. 376 Interview with a third official at the EUD office in Serbia. 377 Interview with an official at Civic Initiatives. Civic 373 Interview with a third official at the EUD office in Initiatives is a leading Belgrade-based CSO ‘founded Serbia. in May 1996 by a group of prominent NGO activists 374 Interview with a second official at the EUD office in that were involved in the anti-war movement and Serbia. non-nationalist democratic opposition since 1990’. Balkan Civic Practices # 11 77

There was one grant which was used to Despite these teething problems, donors organise a few meetings in the first year. welcome the Serbian Government attempts to Since then, 90 per cent of the consultations take more ownership over donor coordination. are carried out via e-mail. For example, the Norwegian Embassy CSOs do not get any feedback on which interviewee said that: comments have been accepted or rejected. We would like to see more of the Thus, according to the respondent from Civic coordination mechanism anchored firmly Initiatives, SEKO has effectively turned into an within the Serbian institutions, so that info service for EU programmes and projects. their voices can be more frequently heard The SEIO representative responded to some and more systematically heard on all the of these critiques stating that they also get EU issues which are generally discussed. So, draft documents to comment on a very short we are looking forward to that, simply, notice and that they do not have the capacity while we manage as good as we can.382 to translate these documents in English. The GIZ respondent added: Furthermore, they do not have the capacity to liaise with CSOs on which comments have been The Serbian side also is very much adopted or rejected. However, the respondent interested in becoming, let’s say, more still felt that the SEKO mechanism is useful.378 and more the owner of in what direction this whole business develops. And by 9.5. Donor Coordination that I mean in what areas the assistance is provided. And this is surprisingly, in Since 2012, donor coordination is managed a very positive way surprisingly, for all by SEIO. Donor coordination is organised donors here active [sic].383 around ten thematic sectoral working groups (SWG), one of which deals with civil society, However, the GIZ respondent was also cautious media and culture.379 Each SWG is led by a about the efficiency of the Government-led ministry and a leading donor. In addition to mechanisms, stating: the SWGs, donors are supposed to organise Informal Donor Groups with donors only. Various approaches have been taken. However, the mechanisms do not seem to be First of all, there always has been quite operational as yet. The SIDA representative considerable effort put into by the Serbian claimed that they were the only ones to take side, trying to coordinate things, with the initiative to form a donor coordination medium kind of success. Then this year group in the area of environment, but that this another trial was started to restructure would take time to establish.380 The Norwegian the whole thing more sector related.384 Embassy interviewee added that there were According to the World Bank interviewee, some problems in the establishment of this donor coordination used to be organised by coordination mechanism, which is why ‘there donors in an informal manner until 2012. has been a new attempt to reinvent this Donors would organise meetings in their structure with fewer levels, fewer subgroups, own areas of interest. This coordination was fewer sub mechanism, so to speak, which was very efficient because the meetings were very in large degree agreed on and finalized with practical, they were focused on addressing donor community this spring [2013]’.381 the problems faced by the donors in the 378 Interview with an official at SEIO. 379 See: http://www.evropa.gov.rs/Evropa/PublicSite/ 382 Interview with an official at the Norwegian Embassy AboutUs.aspx in Serbia. 380 Interview with an official at the SIDA office in Serbia. 383 Interview with an official at the GIZ office in Serbia. 381 Interview with an official at the Norwegian Embassy 384 Interview with an official at the GIZ office in Serbia. in Serbia. 78 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans implementation of their programmes. Since Ultimately, any donor mechanism will need to SEIO took over coordination in 2012, there strike a balance between coordination, whilst has been a loss in efficiency because the still managing the diverse donor agendas, as discussions are much more formal. These the GIZ interviewee pointed out: discussions are led by the Government, which thematically organises them in accordance There are a lot of interests involved in with the EU chapters, so the mechanism is not this game. You can’t just neglect them. as operational as it used to be.385 The American administration has certain things that it expects, the German Still, according to respondents from GIZ, administration has certain things it UNICEF, and the EUD, the current mechanism expects, the, let’s say, the Swedish have, functions well in terms of exchanging Norwegians, the EUD or Commission information and avoiding duplication. Such a has. Or the Japanese, who are also still coordination mechanism is crucial in view of the increasing involvement of the government active here. So you have to somehow in the planning of IPA funds, as stated by an try to include this, because if you don’t, official from the Norwegian Embassy: the consequences, they say OK, you do your stuff, and we do our stuff …You run It is needed, certainly, with the increasing a much higher risk of all of the sudden amount of the IPA funding and more finding yourself duplicating things.388 complex engagement, and heavier The formal donor coordination mechanism management of Serbian institution themselves. [With the] decentralized currently does not involve private donors, implementation mechanisms/systems, such as BTD, ERSTE Foundation and FOS. in Serbia, more institutions will be The FOS interviewee said that they are not involved in managing foreign assistance, involved in any form of institutionalised IPA funding predominantly, and that coordination mechanism. FOS carries out just increases the need for coordination bilateral consultations with other donors on and for a horizontal communication. So an ad hoc basis and through participation in this is, I am sure this will be developed common projects. It also gives comments further, it has to be’.386 on the strategies of other donors (i.e. World Bank, EU) which also constitutes a form However, the GIZ respondent voiced concern of coordination.389 The ERSTE Foundation about coordination primarily around EU representative conceded that they are not in integration, since it may exclude certain contact with donors working in similar areas of important issues: civil society support: EU accession is one issue, [a] very important issue, but if you look a bit in a For the time being we didn’t team up broader sense, Serbia is a transformation with, for example, [the] Norwegians are country and transformation covers super active in Balkans. We know this also a lot of areas which have nothing because some NGOs we are supporting whatsoever to do with the EU accession. or working with also get support from And there is also need there and express, Sweden, from Norway and so on, so how do you deal with that.387 we know that this is another possible partner to team up. But for the time being, we’ve just been collaborating with 385 Interview with an official at the World Bank office in Serbia. 388 Interview with an official at the GIZ office in Serbia. 386 Interview with an official at the Norwegian Embassy 389 Interview with an official at the Fund for an Open in Serbia. Society in Serbia. 387 Interview with an official at the GIZ office in Serbia. Balkan Civic Practices # 11 79

other foundations, so this is what we other institutions asking what are you did. And in a very small scale, bringing doing and how can we somehow [be] 393 in some support from companies. For interlinked. example, [the] Vienna Insurance Group Outside these formalised mechanisms, was supporting the European Fund for donors often coordinate their activities on the Balkans for some special fellowship an ad hoc basis around specific themes. For program But European money, from the example, various donors mentioned that European Union or state money from there is a coordination group in the field of different other donors or institutions that parliament-related work, and there are also haven’t been targeted yet.390 groups of donors dealing with South Serbia or Although private donors are not present in the Sandzak. Amongst bilateral donors, the UK has aforementioned formal donor coordination established close cooperation with Norway and 394 forums, there are some coordination forums the Netherlands. For SIDA, ‘the ones that specifically for private donors such as the we most closely have relation and contact with Grantmakers East Forum (GEF), which brings is definitely the EUD, and then I would say a together private donors working in Central and couple of other bilateral, I would say Germany, Eastern Europe every year. Norway, Switzerland, in some cases [it] is the US, but less [so]’.395 In addition to the formalised mechanisms within Serbia, large international donors have Most of the coordination in the field of civil their own internal coordination. For example, society takes place at the informal level. Donor the UN Country Team (UNCT) coordinates the representatives consult with their peers in work of the different UN agencies in Serbia, other agencies when they receive proposals and USAID’s implementing partners such from CSOs. These consultations are quite as Institute for Sustainable Communities efficient because there are not that many 396 (ISC), National Democratic institute (NDI), donors dealing with civil society, and there International Republican Institute (IRI) work are not many CSOs capable of producing good 397 in close cooperation to maximise the impact projects. Another avenue of coordination of their interventions.391 As mentioned above, outside the formalised mechanisms has been EU accession sets the agenda for donor the participation of donors in the steering activities and coordination, but according to the committees of projects dealing with civil interviewee from the British Embassy, it is very society. A certain level of coordination occurs difficult with the EU because their procedures through the TACSO Local Advisory Groups are very formal.392 The interviewee from GIZ (LAGs), and USAID used to organise meetings added that the EU rarely consults with other as part of their major civil society programme, donors to find out what they are doing: the Civil Society Advocacy Initiative (CSAI). There is also a certain degree of coordination They are the most important player... But through cooperation in thematic areas or I think it would also serve them well in participation in joint projects. Working together their own projects if they pay a bit more allows donors to reduce the administrative attention to what others do, and not only expect the others to come to them, but 393 Interview with an official at the GIZ office in Serbia. also in their mission having someone 394 Interview with an official at the British Embassy in Serbia. institutionalised, send their people to 395 Interview with an official at the SIDA office in Serbia. 390 Interview with an official at ERSTE Stiftung. 396 Interview with an official with the Norwegian 391 Interview with an official at the ISC office in Serbia. Embassy in Serbia. 392 Interview with an official at the British Embassy in 397 Interview with an official with the Dutch Embassy in Serbia. Serbia. 80 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans costs associated with the implementation of project to some institution, why don’t projects. This applies both to the administrative you hook it up to the German project? costs of the Serbian administration, which So we don’t lose time, we have a bigger otherwise has to interact with a lot of different leverage effect, and we know what they donors, and those of the donors themselves, are doing, and, apart from that, we are some of which have very limited capacities. convinced [that] what they are doing is For example, the World Bank has set up a the right thing.401 Multi-Donor Trust Fund (MDTF) which involves various bilateral and multilateral donors in The SCO interviewee gave a similar example a project focused on legal reform. This has of how their expertise can link in with wider significantly reduced the costs of administering assistance in Serbia and avoid duplication. SCO and coordinating projects related to legal develops projects in line with its comparative reform.398 Another example is that most advantages and the programmes of other projects funded by BTD are co-financed with donors. For instance, the EU and the Council by the EU or other bilateral donors, which of Europe (CoE) had a big project on improving indirectly allows for coordination.399 The human resources in the local administration, Norwegian respondent said that informal which is an area in which the SCO has a lot coordination prevents duplication of assistance: of expertise. Instead of developing its own When we assess projects (…) and we fully-fledged project in the same area, the SCO shortlist projects, let’s say we have 20, developed a small pilot project to test some 25 of them we want to contract, we will solutions which could be replicated on a larger 402 do extensive search within the [donor] scale within the scope of the EU project. community- of course check USAID, Turning to donors as agenda setters, on some the EUD supported projects with this occasions, small private donors have the lead organisation, but also with smaller in developing new activities or thematic areas foundations, smaller embassies: the that are then taken over by the big bilateral Dutch, FOS, Civil Rights Defenders, all or multilateral donors. For example, FOS the donors that have money will be this was the pionneer in supporting CSOs in the way or another asked about particular field of transparency and monitoring, and the project.400 interviewee from FOS said that they started For the interviewee from GIZ, this type of supporting a group of organisations in 2004, coordination would allow avoiding duplication long before this theme became the focus and also give greater leverage on an issue, for of intervention for most bilateral donors in 403 example: Serbia. Although this is an example of donor programming being influenced by smaller Another issue is again legal reform donors, for the most part, bilateral donors where we are in one specific area active are very much influenced by the EU in the and have been. The EU was planning on planning of their intervention in Serbia. The doing more, which was good. And then representatives of the Norwegian Embassy the Serbian side said to the EU well, the see their role as complementary to the EU. Germans are already working in this The flexibility of their programmes is geared at area, so why instead of tendering this filling the gaps in the larger IPA engagement.

398 Interview with an official at the World Bank office in 401 Interview with an official with the GIZ office in Serbia. Serbia. 402 Interview with an official with the Swiss Cooperation 399 Interview with an official with the BTD office in Serbia. Office in Serbia. 400 Interview with an official with the Norwegian 403 Interview with an official with the Fund for an Open Embassy in Serbia. Society in Serbia. Balkan Civic Practices # 11 81

The interviewee commented that: response mechanism that can be accessed within 3 months by CSOs from all three At the national level we believe that the countries, and the Civil Society Fund which Norwegian government to government is a long term capacitation mechanism for funding has a shorter line of response CSOs from Serbia only. Norway is thus one than much of the IPA programing, for of the biggest supporters of civil society in example. So, we’ve seen examples Serbia, and it is the only donor that provides of how we can be able to shape institutional grants for CSOs. The Dutch engagements which are intermediary embassy also provides some project-grants for in terms of larger IPA engagement in CSOs through the MATRA programme. So does some sectors where we can simply do the SCO whose representative noted that their short term interventions for a year or ‘small projects scheme’ might be discontinued two, while a large program is being due to their lack of capacity to administer an developed. We try to be adaptive and increasing number of applications.406 Finally, flexible and fill a role in between the private donors such as FOS and BTD – which much larger programs, but still within is based in Belgrade but operates across the the objective underpinning the overall region – provide flexible project grants for priorities and goals in Serbia in this which CSOs can apply throughout the year. respect.404 A number of donors in Serbia still provide The EUD itself underlined that it saw itself as assistance to CSOs via international the agenda setter. One of the interviewees implementing agencies/organisations, from the Delegation said that the EU is the although this type of assistance is gradually lead donor and that others should adapt their being phased out. USAID’s latest programme programmes to the EU. This is why other of support to civil society in Serbia – Civil donors are consulted in the programming of Society Forward – is implemented by ISC IPA, which does not mean that they have a say in cooperation with local partners. This in defining EU priorities.405 programme seeks to build the capacity of a select number of Serbian CSOs in order to 9.6. Donor Assistance to Civil enable them to directly apply for USAID funding Society in the future. As in other WB countries, SIDA implements its assistance through three Donors in Serbia resort to a variety of Swedish organisations (Olof Palme Center, modalities of civil society assistance. As for CRD and Kvinna till Kvinna) and the Regional other countries, the most common type of Environmental Centre based in Budapest. assistance is project grant-making. This is However, at the time of research, SIDA was done on a large scale by the EU through the developing a new strategy for civil society in EIDHR and CSF programmes, but also by the region which involved a shift in modality of some other donors such as the Norwegian assistance.407 Finally, SCO has a programme Embassy which administers assistance to geographically focusing on Southern Serbia CSOs in Serbia, Macedonia and Montenegro. that is implemented by United Nations Office As noted above, the Norwegian Embassy has for Project Services (UNOPS) and that includes two programmes dedicated to civil society: a grant scheme for local civil society managed the Embassy Fund which is a flexible rapid by UNOPS.

404 Interview with an official at the Norwegian Embassy 406 Interview with an official at the Swiss Cooperation in Serbia. Office in Serbia. 405 Interview with a third official at the EU Delegation in 407 Interview with officials at the Swedish Embassy in Serbia. Serbia. 82 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans

Some donors provide long-term support to CSOs by establishing strategic partnerships with local organisations. UNICEF has thus developed close collaboration with a network of organisations that participate in the development and implementation of UNICEF’s activities in Serbia. According to the UNICEF representative, partners are chosen in function of their capacity to contribute to the strategic objectives defined by UNICEF – the organisation’s expertise is the main selection criteria.408 While this mode of assistance limits the number of beneficiaries, it gives substantial ownership to local organisations which fully participate in project development from inception to implementation. Finally, several donors provide indirect support to CSOs by involving them in the implementation of projects in which the main stakeholders are generally state institutions. This usually consists in CSOs delivering some products or services such as research, monitoring or training. For example, while it does not provide any grants for civil society, GIZ makes financial contributions that are ‘always linked to a very precisely defined input’.409 This approach is based on the belief that the capacities of CSOs have been sufficiently built up so that donors can draw on CSOs for their expertise and treat them like partners rather than aid beneficiaries.

408 Interview with an official at the UNICEF office in Serbia. 409 Interview with an official at the GIZ office in Serbia. Conclusions and Recommendations 84 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans

aid delivery without acknowledging that the Conclusions recipient environmental organisations, for example, were unable to act as conduits for, or The research underpinning this report had participate in, the citizen protests to save the two key objectives: to better understand the commons. reasons for the long-term engagement and We therefore wish to divide this concluding rationales for donor aid programming in the section of the report in to two: to offer a set Western Balkans; and, somewhat relatedly, to of conclusions based on the data gathered; examine how the donors who remain active and a separate section offering a series of in the Western Balkans perceive the Civil recommendations in light of the broader Society Organisations (CSOs) they support, political context. how they conceptualise and value civil society, and the mechanisms they employ to support The donor assistance to the Western Balkans them. In other words, we set out to study is almost exclusively framed in terms of what motivates donors to stay, how and what support for the EU integration process. Donor they value in the organisations they fund, intervention in the region should be understood and how they perceive their mission and the as a political effort at helping those countries sustainability of the endeavour. This is all the on their European path rather than a long-term more pressing in light of the global crisis, the developmental project. In this context, civil political turmoil in the Middle East and North society development is not a priority on the Africa, and an anecdotal sense of frustration donor agenda. CSOs are generally perceived and lethargy amongst the donors still active in as means for achieving specific ends, such as the region. The course of our research and the the promotion of European norms and values. completion of this report witnessed several From donors’ perspective, a project-based political uprisings (e.g. Bosnia-Herzegovina, civil society that can rapidly respond to their Kosovo). Much has been said and written ever-changing needs is an ideal instrument by commentators about the political and for pursuing their mission. Therefore, donors economic challenge that lies ahead for the should not be expected to lead civil society successor states that remain outside of the EU; development in the region. is a European perspective really likely? How The donors who remain active in the region should the international community respond overwhelmingly endorse the strategy of to the plenums in BiH and the resurgent supporting CSOs indirectly as part of an authoritarianism in Macedonia? Our findings overarching pledge to strengthen democratic offer little insight into such meta questions. governance. In other words, they accept the Yet it is difficult, when drawing conclusions rationale of only channelling aid through CSOs to such an extensive and in-depth research as part of the endeavour to support state project, not to refer to, or at least take heed institutions and government agencies. This of, the wider political, economic and social marks a significant contrast to the strategy context. For instance, it is difficult to report of supporting civil society as part of a quest the overwhelmingly negative attitudes held by to strengthen democracy. It was the latter donors towards CSOs, and the widely held view that guided CSO development in Central and that civil society is sufficiently established and Eastern Europe in the 1990s. not in need of direct support without reflecting Perhaps one of the most striking and on the absence of CSOs in the uprisings across significant findings was the bleak view of CSOs Bosnia-Herzegovina in early 2014; or to and civil society held by the vast majority of record the value placed by donors on short- donors operating in the region. Although those term project grants as the favoured mode of donors operating in Serbia and Montenegro Balkan Civic Practices # 11 85 held a more positive view of civil society, and The lack of ownership over the definition of the Nordic countries’ donors remain committed these priorities is a major obstacle to the to funding CSOs as a pillar of democracy, development of a mature and independent civil the overriding view was that building civil society in the region. This research shows that society is, and should remain, a subordinate CSOs are not genuinely involved in the overall objective. Even the more positive donors planning of aid which donors generally carry perceived civil society to be over-bloated and out with the government. Furthermore, CSOs certainly big enough. They see no rationale for have little say in the design and development supporting civil society other than as providers of projects which they implement on behalf of of services, or to perform specific functions. donors. The data point to the predominance Funding channelled through civil society is of short-term project grants rather than seen as wasteful, inefficient and ineffective institutional grants as the main mode of donor use of scarce resources. More alarmingly, assistance. Notwithstanding some variation CSOs, which donors have funded for, in many between donors, the proportion of assistance cases, several years, are not viewed as good awarded to CSOs that is not aligned to specific partners, and there is a reluctance to engage project objectives is very small indeed. The with anything more than a very narrow band of overall impression is that donors resort to trusted organisations. CSOs are most valued CSOs for implementing their agendas on the for their role as monitors of government, ground rather than for the sake of building a or as conduits for governance reform, but strong and robust civil society. only a small number of such organisations In view of this, CSOs in the WB should strive are deemed worthy in the pursuit of these to have more ownership in the definition and functions. development of donor funded projects aimed at Most donor representatives in the Western civil society. At the highest level, this involves Balkans are critical of civil society for being having more say in the identification of the overly dependent on, and oriented towards, areas of intervention and priorities sought by donor support. CSOs are generally considered foreign donors and recipient governments. to be ‘donor driven’ insofar as their work This requires the establishment of institutional is substantially shaped by the availability mechanisms which would allow CSOs to of foreign funding. Many organisations are participate in the planning of aid and could be a deemed to operate as consultancies, designing basis for broader involvement of civil society in projects in response to the Call for Proposals policy-making in the future. This could be done issued by donors rather than according to local along the lines of the SEKO mechanism that needs. As a result, many donors perceive CSOs exists in Serbia, which has many shortcomings as being detached from the local communities but still constitutes an example of best whose needs they are supposed to address. practice in the region. At the same time, CSOs This is seen by many as a major challenge to should advocate for donors to deliver more the legitimacy and sustainability of civil society assistance through institutional grant-making in the Balkans. which allows CSOs to have more autonomy in their work. As this research shows, several Interestingly, some donors recognise that their donors have already resorted to institutional practices have substantially contributed to grant-making in order to have CSOs in the this state of affairs. The prevalence of project driving seat in terms of defining priorities and grant-making as the main instrument of donor developing activities. While institutional grant- assistance to CSOs has created a highly volatile making is not a panacea, it offers a significant civil society whose survival depends on the opportunity for local organisations to grow and ability to adapt to donors’ changing priorities. become more sustainable. 86 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans

engaging CSOs in the region have evolved Recommendations quite considerably, there is further need to use the assistance envelope to support the and the Way Ahead development of a diverse and multifarious ‘civil society’ populated by professional CSOs We offer the following broad recommendations engaged in projects, but also by organisations based on the findings of the study: connected with grass-roots political campaigns 1. Donors should recognise the need to further and actions, and networks able to channel develop civil society in the Western Balkans. citizen opinions and grievances. Besides being an instrument for building 4. Civil society needs to be actively involved good governance, civil society assistance in the planning of aid through the should be reinstated as a mechanism establishment of institutional structures for the advancement and protection of that would allow for genuine consultations democracy and human rights in the region. between donors, governments and CSOs 2. In channelling their assistance and the over the identification and selection of aid modalities of aid they deploy, donors need priorities. In the long run, these structures to make a fundamental distinction between should allow for increased cooperation ‘politically-engaged’ CSOs (advocacy between government and civil society, and groups) and organisations that exist to increased involvement of CSOs in policy- provide services and run tenured contracts. making. CSOs need to be supported to do advocacy, 5. Donors should prioritise modalities of social inclusion / social enterprise activities; assistance that give more ownership they need to be working at both elite and to local CSOs in the development and community levels; there needs to be much implementation of projects. This involves more diversity and specialization. a shift from channelling aid through 3. CSOs engaged in EU-funded projects international to local implementing and supported directly or indirectly by partners, and from delivering aid through the Commission often retain low levels of project grant-making to institutional capacity to engage beyond the narrow remit grant-making. At the same time, the of short-term projects, which is a problem planning capacities of CSOs need to be for democratic governance and can have raised for these organisations to take over profound implications for the prospects of more responsibility and become more future enlargement. autonomous. As the largest and most significant donor in the 6. Domestic support for civil society is the Western Balkans the EU has the opportunity, most viable alternative to donor funding in as well as the capacity and authority, to the long run. While levels of support for civil address this through the modalities of its society vary across the region, the evidence own assistance, and through its leverage suggests that most of it is allocated in a of other donors operating in the region. At partial and non-transparent manner. Donors present the EU exerts its influence through should promote and provide assistance for its Acquis-inspired assistance agenda - which reforming state funding for civil society at has become the dominant framework from the municipal and central government levels within which most donors support CSOs - in order to increase the prospects for CSO delivered through short-term discrete projects. sustainability. Although EU strategies for supporting and Annex1 List of Interviews (in alphabetical order)

Aleksandra Kalinić, Policy Officer - Brigitte Heuel-Rolf, Country Director, GIZ Development Cooperation Department, Office in Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina Royal Netherlands Embassy, Serbia Clare Masson, Program Officer, USAID, Albania Alenka Verbole, Senior Democratization Danka Latković, Head of the Office for Officer, OSCE, Albania cooperation with NGOs, General Secretariat Alma Zukorlić, National Program Officer, of the Government of Montenegro, Swiss Cooperation Office, Bosnia- Montenegro Herzegovina Đorđe Popović, Advisor, Office for Cooperation Ana Milenić, Human rights focal points, EUD, with Civil Society, Serbia Serbia Dragana Stevanović Kolaković, Project Angelina Pistoli, Public Affair Office US Management Specialist for Civil Society, Embassy, Albania USAID, Serbia Anja Gjokutaj, Senior Communications Officer, Džemal Hodžić, Programme Manager for Civil World Bank, Albania Society, Media, and Labour & Employment, EUD, Bosnia-Herzegovina Anne Savary, Deputy Country Director, Swiss Cooperation Office, Albania Elda Bagaviki, National Programme Officer, Swiss Cooperation Office Arben Rama, Cluster Manager for Economic Governance, UNDP, Albania Elga Mitra, Policy Officer, Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Tirana, Albania Benjamin Perks, UNICEF Representative in Montenegro Elton Lelo, Programme Assistant, Democratisation Department (Gender and Beti Bakovska, Advisor, Good Governance Civil Society Unit), OSCE, Albania and Culture, Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Macedonia Fatmir Curri, Program Director, Kosovar Civil Society Foundation, Kosovo Biljana Dakić Đorđević, Senior Program Officer, Balkan Trust for Democracy, Serbia Genci Pasko, Resident Advisor, TACSO Office, Albania Bogdan Gavanski, Chief of Party - Civil Society Forward Initiative (CSF), Institute for Goran Đurović, Resident Advisor, TACSO Office, Sustainable Communities, Serbia Montenegro Boris Ristović, Civil Society Grants Manager, Goran Tinjić, Senior Operations Officer, World USAID, Montenegro Bank, Bosnia-Herzegovina 88 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans

Hrvoje Batinić, Coordinator of Roma and Civil Lazar Šestović, Country Economist, World Society Programme, Open Society Fund, Bank, Serbia Bosnia-Herzegovina Luan Shllaku, Executive Director, Kosovo Ibrahim Mehmeti, National Program Officer, Foundation for Open Society, Kosovo Swiss Agency for Development and Maja Vučković Krčmar, Programming and Cooperation (SDC), Macedonia Coordination Manager, EUD, Serbia Irena Ivanova, Task Manager, EUD, Macedonia Marc Ellingstat, Director for Development Irena Stevchevska, Head of Programme, Programs, USAID, Albania British Embassy in Skopje, Macedonia Mariam Naqvi, Deputy Head of Mission, Iva Cuko Public Affair Office US Embassy, Embassy of Norway, Bosnia and Albania Herzegoviana Ivan Kuzminović, Programme Officer, Royal Melita Chokrevska, Project Management Norwegian Embassy, Serbia Specialist, USAID, Macedonia Jadranka Jelinčić, Executive Director, Fund for Milan Mrđa, Programme Manager, Center an Open Society, Serbia for Promotion of Civil Society, Bosnia and Heryegovina Jasmina Zorić Petrović, Programme Officer, Embassy of Sweden/SIDA, Serbia Milovan Grba, Projects Coordinator, British Embassy Podgorica, Montenegro Jelena Krstić, Advisor for Project Implementation and Monitoring of the Miranda , Project Coordinator, British Implementation of Projects, Office for Embassy/Foreign and Commonwealth Office Cooperation with Civil Society, Serbia in Pristina, Kosovo Jelena Tadžić, Programme Officer for Natalia Dianiskova, Head of Operations Vulnerable Groups, UNDP, Serbia for Social Development, Civil Society and Cross-Border Cooperation, EUD, Bosnia- Jon O’Shaughnessy, Press, Political and Herzegovina Projects Officer, Brirish Embassy, Bosnia- Herzegovina Natia Esebua, Deputy Head, Office of Central Coordination at OSCE, Kosovo Jonathan Francis, First Secretary and Deputy Head of Development Cooperation, Embassy Nenad Rakočević, Deputy Director, GIZ, of Sweden /SIDA, Bosnia-Herzegovina Montenegro Karin Wagner, Governance Adviser, Nevena Todosijević, Deputy Secretary, Democratization Department, OSCE, Serbia European Integration Office, Serbia Katarina Kus Ivanova, Task Manager, EUD, Olaf Poeschke, Deputy Head of Mission, Macedonia Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany, Montenegro Katharina Stocker, Deputy Director of Cooperation, Swiss Agency for Development Orjada Tare, Programme Manager, Open and Cooperation- SDC, Macedonia Society Foundation of Albania, Albania Klaus Schmidt, Team Leader, GIZ, Serbia Petar Vasilev, National Project Officer, SDC, Serbia Knut Neumayer, Programme Director, ERSTE Foundation, Serbia Philipp Annawitt, Senior Programme Officer, Democratization, OSCE, Kosovo Balkan Civic Practices # 11 89

Rezarta Kartuci, Programme Officer, Taulant Hoxha, Program Director, Kosovar Development Cooperation Gender, Human Civil Society Foundation, Kosovo Rights and Civil Society, Embassy of Sweden, Torgny Svenungsson, Head of Swedish Albania Developement Cooperation , Embassy of Roger Jorgensen, Deputy Head of Mission, Sweden/SIDA, Serbia Royal Norwegian Embassy, Serbia Uwe Stumpf, Director, GIZ, Serbia Romain Boitard, Task Manager, EUD, Vera Baumann, Head of Section for Montenegro Development Cooperation, German Embassy, Sabina Đapo, Project Manager, British Tirana, Albania Embassy, Bosnia-Herzegovina Visare Gashi-Gorani, Programme Officer Sadeta Škaljić, Head of the Sector for for Development Cooperation, Embassy of Cooperation with Non-Governmental Sweden in Pristina, Kosovo Organizations, Ministry of Justice, Bosnia- Vladan Avramović, Political Officer, British Herzegovina Embassy, Serbia Samir Omerefendić, Project Manager, UNDP, Vladimir Milchin, Executive Director, Bosnia-Herzegovina Foundation Open Society Macedonia, Sanja Bojanić, Democratic Governance Team Macedonia Leader, UNDP, Montenegro Zorica Rašković, Resident Advisor, TACSO, Saranda Cana, Programme Manager, Swiss Serbia Cooperation Office, Kosovo Selma Sijerčić, Program Management Specialist, USAID, Bosnia and Hoerzegovina Sergej Vujačić, Project Officer, TACSO, Serbia Silva PeŠić, National Human Rights Advisor, United Nations, Macedonia Siniša Đurić, Partnership Specialist, UNICEF, Serbia Sonja Andonova, Portfolio Manager and Open Regional Fund for Foreign Trade Promotion Coordinator in Macedonia, GIZ, Macedonia Stefano Calabretta, Programme Manager for Civil Society, EUD, Albania Sunchica Kostovska, Program Director, Foundation Open Society Macedonia, Macedonia Sunchica Sazdovska, Resident Advisor, TACSO, Macedonia Svetlana Ðukić, Project Manager for Civil Society, EUD, Serbia Annex 2 Interview questions

1. Donor strategies - Explore to what extent donors’ (Strategic level personnel): strategies are determined by ‘organisational survival’, that is the Discuss the motives for donor presence in need to secure funding and show the country/region: measurable results back home. Why is your organisation maintaining a Discuss to what extent donors take presence in country X? into account local priorities in the What are the objectives/priorities of your development of their strategies:

organisation in country X? How do you find out about local needs/ How long do you envisage to pursue priorities?

your activities in country X? To what extent do you consult with Is this part of wider strategy by your government for defining your priorities? country/institutions in terms of - Which government institutions are geographic or thematic priorities you involved in this process? Do you purse? have “democratisation/civil society Discuss how donor strategies are conditionality” for funds provided to developed: the government?

Explore the level of input from To what extent are local CSOs involved in headquarters/ regional and local offices. programme design? - Discuss personal arrangements: - If so, which CSOs? the extent that the personality/ Discuss donor coordination: person in charge sets on or off the process. (e.g. difference between a Do you take part in any formal donor very engaged Task Manager in the coordination mechanisms? EUD and not so much interested and To what extent are these mechanisms engaged “boss”/Head of Unit) useful for generating cooperation among donors? To what extent are your priorities determined ‘from above’ (i.e. To what extent do these meetings governments, congress for USAID, influence your decisions? Could you give etc…)? us a specific example of how interaction with other donors impacted on your work? Balkan Civic Practices # 11 91

To what extent are your policies How does the programme fit into the influenced by the strategies of other broader strategies? donors? How do you look at the work Are there any available programme of (other) big donors such as the EU or documents that I could access? USAID? Discuss how programmes are turned into Explore the main approach used by the projects: donor: What actions/projects are part of this ‘Top-down’ approach involving the programme? restructuring of state institutions and political elites How are projects formulated within programmatic areas? ‘Bottom-up’ approach emphasising civic engagement, government-civil society What is the involvement of stakeholders partnership, deliberation, etc... (esp. government, CSO, other donors) in programming (rules vs. practice)? Both, in which case, what is the most important? Discuss how the programmes are implemented: - Who are the main recipients of your assistance (state institutions, CSOs, Do donors contract Western CSOs/ private firms, local communities, consultancies for the implementation of etc...)? these programmes? If they do, to what extent (percent or money value of the - Why does your organisation focus on support)? these recipients? Do they work with local institutions/ What role do you envisage for civil CSOs for the implementation of society organisations in your assistance programmes? If yes, what are the aid programme? modalities used (open vs. restricted Focus on CSOs as service providers vs. calls, selection procedure, core vs. advocacy, lobbying and public policy project support, long vs. short-term, coalitions/networks vs. individual Explore how donors envisage the organisations’ support), timing (from distinction/relationship between political priority/objective-setting to the CfP and elites, states institutions and civil society implementation) What programmes specifically engage with civil society organisations and their Relationship with local CSOs: so far results/impact? If the programme is not implemented by local CSOs, do you engage with local CSOs in any other way? 2. Practices and modalities If implemented by local CSOs, are these (Programme Level Personnel): organisations that you have worked with before? If so, why are you continuing Discuss the details of the programme working with this organisation? What are the aims and objectives of this - Existing studies suggest that donors specific programme? always work with the same CSOs. Explore whether this is still the case and, if so, why. 92 Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans

Explore how donors control and evaluate How is ‘success’ defined? What are the the implementation of programmes: benchmarks in this evaluation? (‘process results’ vs. ‘impact results’) How do you monitor the granted assistance? (regular reporting – Do donors evaluate the long term impact “milestone” reporting – final reporting, of their programmes? If not, why not? continuous monitoring – “milestone” Do you have exit strategy in place and if monitoring – no monitoring, direct yes, what does it entail (e.g. timeframe, monitoring – outsourced monitoring) process, successors-institutions, CSO How do you evaluate the granted etc.) assistance? (continuous evaluation (for the duration of the project) – post-evaluation, internal evaluation (by the implementer) – evaluation by the contractor – external evaluation, financial audit, etc.)

This project is funded by the European Union through the EU Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA) Civil Society Facility (CSF)

IPA Balkan CS Acquis, Strengthening the Advocacy and the Monitoring Potential and Capacity of CSOs Balkan Civil Society Development Network (BCSDN) Mitropolit Teodosij Gologanov 39/II-2, 1000 Skopje Macedonia Tel: +389(0)2 614 42 11 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.balkancsd.net www.facebook.com/balkancsd.net www.twitter.com/BCSDN

DONOR STRATEGIES AND PRACTICES FOR SUPPORTING CIVIL SOCIETY IN THE WESTERN BALKANS

Balkan Civic Practices # 11

In partnership with

This project is funded by the European Union

Donor Strategies and Practices for Supporting Civil Society in the Western Balkans Balkan Civic Practices # 11