Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Monitoring Matrix on Enabling Environment for Civil Society Development
COUNTRY REPORT FOR ALBANIA
Project funded by The European Union
2014
Balkan Civil Society AcquisStrengthening the Advocacy andMonitoring Potential and Capacities of CSOs
Monitoring Matrix on Enabling Environment for Civil Society Development
COUNTRY REPORT FOR ALBANIA
Fondacioni Kosovar për Shoqëri Civile
CPCD
Project funded by The European Union
“This publication has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union and the Olof Palme International Center in Albania with funding from the Swedish Government. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of author and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union, Olof Palme International Center and the Swedish Government.”
Balkan Civil Society AcquisStrengthening the Advocacy andMonitoring Potential and Capacities of CSOs
Monitoring Matrix on Enabling Environment for Civil Society Development
COUNTRY REPORT FOR ALBANIA
Fondacioni Kosovar për Shoqëri Civile
CPCD
Project funded by The European Union
“This publication has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union and the Olof Palme International Center in Albania with funding from the Swedish Government. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of author and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union, Olof Palme International Center and the Swedish Government.”
2014
Grafik Design:
Arben Hamzallari
Printing:
This Monitoring Report is part of the activities of the “Balkan Civil Society Acquis-Strengthening the Advocacy and Monitoring Potential and Capacities of CSOs” project and “Increase Citizen Participation in Policy Making and Implementation”.
Lead Partner: Balkan Civil Society Development Network (BCSDN) Metropolit Teodosij Gologanov 39/II-2 1000-Skopje Macedonia Tel.: + 389 (0)2 614 42 11 E-mail: [email protected]; Website: www.balkancsd.net
Implementing partner in Albania:
Partners Albania, Center for Change and Conflict Management Rruga Sulejman Delvina, N.18, H.8, Ap. 12, Njësia Bashkiake 5, Kodi Postar 1022, Tiranë, Shqipëri, Kutia Postare (PO Box) 2418/1 Tel.: +355 4 2254881 Fax: +355 4 2254883 Email: [email protected] http: //www.partnersalbania.org
Published in Albania, February 2015
5
I. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... 6
Civil Society and Civil Society Development in Albania ........................................................ 6
Key Findings ...........................................................................................................................7
Key Policy Recommendations ............................................................................................... 8
About the project and the Matrix ......................................................................................... 10
II. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 12
About the Monitoring Report ............................................................................................... 12
The Monitoring Matrix on Enabling Environment for Civil Society Development ............... 12
Civil Society and Civil Society Development (CSDev) in Albania .......................................... 13
Specific features and challenges in applying the Matrix in Albania .................................... 14
Acknowledgements and thanks ........................................................................................... 15
III. Methodology ................................................................................................................... 16
Overview of the methodological approach ......................................................................... 16
Participation of the CSO community ................................................................................... 17
IV. Findings and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 19
Area 1: Basic Legal Guarantees of Freedoms ...................................................................... 19
Area 2: Framework for CSO Financial Viability and Sustainability .................................... 22
Area 3: Government-CSO Relationship ................................................................................ 31
V. Findings and Recommendations (Tabular) ......................................................................37
VI. Used Resources and Useful Links ................................................................................. 55
VII. Annex 1 CSOs Questionnaire ........................................................................................ 56
Contents
6
In Albania, freedom of association is provided and guaranteed by the legislation, and all individuals
and legal entities can freely establish, join and participate in non-formal and/or registered organisations without any discrimination. The development of the civil society and Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) has been marked by legal initiatives and changes for creating an enabling environment for the CSOs. The 2014 marked several positive changes and improvements with regards to the legal and regulatory environment for civil society development (CSDev), as well as a better perception of CSOs in regards to the state attitude toward its needs and mutual cooperation.
The legal changes followed the engagements of the state deriving from the granting of EU candidate status to Albania in June 2014, the assessments and recommendations made in the last European Commission Progress Report for Albania, as well as the commitment to address the key burning issues made by the Albanian Government on the National Conference “Social Partners – Time for Action”, organised by Partners Albania on December 2013. The changes are a result of continuous lobbying and pressure of CSOs toward improvements in the legal framework, as well as an increased awareness of the state institutions on the role and importance of CSOs in the democratisation and EU integration process of the country.
To be noted are the adoption of the Resolution for Recognition and Strengthening the Role of Civil Society in the Process of Democratic Development of the Country, on 24th December 2014 by the Albanian Parliament; preparation of the draft Law on the Establishment and Functioning of the National Council for Civil Society; preparation of the draft Road Map for Government Policy on Civil Society Development; adoption of the new Law on VAT; adoption of the Law on Public Notification and Consultation; adoption of a new Law on the Right of Information; preparation of the draft Manual for Public Participation in Decision Making Process by the Parliament; and an open and participatory approach by the Agency for the Support to Civil Society (ASCS) to determine its strategy and funding areas.
While these key legislative steps have been made in all areas, the key challenges from 2013 remain the financial viability and sustainability of CSOs, fiscal treatment and regulations, insufficient public funds supporting CSOs activities and services, lack of enabling and transparent public procurement procedures, effectiveness of the new legal framework on public consultation that came into force in the second half of 2014, and lack of transparency of ASCS activities. Lack of official data on the number of CSOs, number of employees (permanent and part-time) and volunteers in CSOs, as well as the economic value of CSOs in the country, remains also an issue.
7
Key Findings
Key findings from the Monitoring Matrix for Enabling Environment for the Development of Civil Society in Albania address the main findings of monitoring of the legal and regulatory framework in place and the practical impact on their implementation. In overall, the legal framework for establishment and registration of CSOs is in line with international standards and guarantees their right to operate freely, and to regulate their internal structure and operating procedures without unwarranted interference from the state. The legal framework guarantees and allows CSOs to receive funds from different eligible sources of funding as well as to engage in economic activities to secure financial sustainability. One important development with this regard in 2014 is the approval of the new law on VAT and clarification of “economy activity” in the legislation.
With regards to state support through public funding, the Agency for the Support of Civil Society remains the main public entity that target CSOs specifically, distributing public funds through the grant scheme. During 2014, with the new Board of Supervisor and new executive director, ASCS has followed a more open approach with CSOs, by conducting a series of consultative meetings with CSOs for the preparation of the Mid-term and Long-term Strategy, as well as participation in important initiatives for the sector such as the establishment of the National Council for Civil Society. However, CSOs are not satisfied with the transparence and accountability during the selections process of the awarded CSOs and with the conflict of interest rules that are partially respected in practice.
One important development for 2014 is the improvement of cooperation between government and CSOs. Important progress has been made for the materialization of two strategic issues that would contribute to the institutionalization of partnership between the State and CSOs: the adoption of the Resolution For Recognition and Strengthening the Role of Civil Society in the Process of Democratic Development of the Country by the Albanian Parliament and the preparation of the draft Law for the Establishment and Functioning of the National Council for Civil Society, an advisory independent body near to the Council of Ministers. In addition, during 2014 in consultation with CSOs was prepared the Road Map for Government Policy on Civil Society Developmen, which will serve as a strategic document for the cooperation and strengthening of dialogue between the government and civil society. The Law on Notification and Public Consultation, approved in 2014, put forward a requirement for consultation on draft laws and policies with the public. In overall the law is in line with international standards and institutionalizes the public consultation in drafting and approval of the project laws, national and local strategies, as well as policies with high public interest, with the final aim of improvement of quality of policies and juridical acts in general. According to the existing legislation in place, CSOs can compete for state contracts for the provision of different services through public funding. However the legal framework regulating public procurement is not supportive and creates many obstacles that make it impossible for CSOs to compete for the state contracts with the same requirement as other service providers.
8
Key Policy Recommendations
Key policy recommendations are based on the actual legal and regulatory framework as well as the practical experience of CSOs and address main key policy recommendations for the creation of an enabling environment for CSOs in Albania and advancement of civil society in general.
So, one of the main recommendations remains the adoption of appropriate financial reporting and accounting rules (including money laundry regulations) taking into account the specific nature of the CSOs, the size of the organization and its type/scope of activity. Up to now, the financial reporting and accounting rules are not effective. The Law “For the Accounting and Financial statement” does not stipulate any specification and different forms for the accounting and reporting of CSOs from businesses and the rules are the same for all CSOs without following the proportionality principle.
All financial reports prepared by CSOs are subject of control by tax authorities and the
General Directorate for Money Laundering, based on the evaluations of tax inspectors who do not have a depth knowledge and understanding of CSOs sector. Thus, another recommendation is provided to improve this situation through increased capacities of the tax inspectors on the new tax legal framework affecting CSOs and adoption of clear tax inspection procedures.
Based on the key findings, one of the recommendations is related with the Agency for the Support of Civil Society. Since transparency and conflict of interest remain a concern issue for CSOs, increased transparency and accountability of ASCS in funding distribution and appropriate programming to respond to the needs of CSO sector is required. Also, ASCS should adopt clear procedures to address issues of conflict of interest in decision making, to ensure a fair selection process of CSOs benefiting from public funds.
Another issue that should be addressed is
No Top 6 findings from the report Reference
1 There is no state interference in internal governance of CSOs and no practices of invasive oversight from the state.
Area 1
Sub-Area 1.1
2There is a clarification of economic activity of CSOs in the amendments of NPO Law (Law no.92/2013), VAT Law (Law no.92/2014), and the Decision of the Council of Ministers (No. 953, date 29.12.2014).
Area 2
Sub-Area 2.1
3ASCS has adopted a more open dialogue with the civil society sector, although transparency and accountability in funding distribution and conflict of interest within the agency remain problematic.
Area 2
Sub-Area 2.2
4There is increased cooperation between the state and CSOs in the preparation of strategic documents and establishment of mechanisms for the creation of an enabling environment for CSOs and Civil Society Development.
Area 3
Sub-Area 3.1
5
A new Law on Public Notification and Consultation that institutionalizes the public consultation in drafting and approval of the project laws, national and local strategies, as well as policies with high public interest is adopted by the Albanian Parliament in October 2014.
Area 3
Sub-Area 3.2
6 The legal environment is not supportive for CSOs involvement in service provision through public funds.
Area 3
Sub-Area 3.3
9
the lack of statistical data on the number and economic value of CSOs. Albania does not has available official data from the Court of First Instance of Tirana (the only state authority in charge for the registration of CSOs in Albania) on the total number of CSOs. In addition, there is missing information on the number of full-time and part-time employees and volunteers in CSOs, as well as on the economic value of CSOs. Such data would help the state to understand the importance and role of the sector in the economy of the country, and to design programs and provide incentives to stimulate employment in CSOs.
Albania does not have an adequate law regulating voluntarism issues, despite the indispensable role and contribute of volunteers in the conduction of activities of most CSOs through the years. Adoption of an adequate legal framework for voluntarism would proactively encourage its development and provide benefits for the society.
Considering the discouraging situation with regards to participation of CSOs in public tenders for service delivery, one of the main recommendations remains the adoption of a special law on social procurement, separate from the public procurement law.
No Top 6 recommendations for reform Reference
1Adoption of financial reporting (including money laundry regulations) and accounting rules that take into consideration the specific nature of CSOs and the size and type/scope of activities by tax authorities.
Area 1
Sub-Area 1.1
2 Increase capacities of the tax inspectors on the new tax legal framework affecting CSOs and adoption of clear tax inspection procedures.
Area 1
Sub-Area 1.2
3 Publicly available statistical data on the number and economic value of CSOs in the country is needed.
Area 2
Sub-Area 2.2
4Increased transparency and accountability of ASCS in funding distribution and appropriate programming to respond to the needs of CSO sector. Adoption of clear procedures to address issues of conflict of interest in decision making.
Area 2
Sub-Area 2.2
5 Adoption of the law on Voluntarism.Area 2
Sub-Area 2.3
6 Adoption of a special law on Social Procurement.Area 3
Sub-Area 3.3
10
This Monitoring Report is part of the activities of the “Balkan Civil Society Acquis-Strengthening
the Advocacy and Monitoring Potential and Capacities of CSOs” project funded by the EU and the Balkan Trust for Democracy (BTD) and “Increase Citizen Participation in Policy Making and Implementation”, project funded by Olof Palme International Center in Albania with funding from the Swedish Government. This Monitoring Report is the first of this kind to be published on a yearly basis for at least the 48-month duration of the project. The monitoring is based on the Monitoring Matrix on Enabling Environment for Civil Society Development (CSDev) developed by BCSDN and ECNL. It is part of a series of country reports covering 8 countries in the Western Balkans and Turkey1. A region Monitoring Report is also available summarizing findings and recommendations for all countries and a web platform offering access to monitoring data per country and sub-area at www.monitoringmatrix.net.
The Monitoring Matrix presents the main principles and standards that have been identified as crucial to exist in order for the legal environment to be considered as supportive and enabling for the operations of CSOs. The Matrix is organized around three areas, each divided by sub-areas: (1) Basic Legal Guarantees of Freedoms; (2) Framework for CSOs’ Financial Viability and Sustainability; (3) Government – CSO Relationship. The principles, standards and indicators have
been formulated with consideration of the current state of development and diversity in the countries of the Western Balkans and Turkey. They rely on the internationally guaranteed freedoms and rights and best regulatory practices at the European Union level and in European countries. The Matrix aims to define an optimum situation desired for civil society to function and develop effectively and at the same time it aims to set a realistic framework which can be followed and implemented by public authorities. Having in mind that the main challenges lie in implementation, the indicators are defined to monitor the situation on level of legal framework and practical application. The annual monitoring and reporting in 2014 is focused on twelve (12) proxy standards to be monitored in all countries, and five (5) elected standards to be monitored in Albania based on the expected changes in the Area 3 of the Monitoring Matrix: Government – CSO Relationship. The twelve (12) core standards are as follows: Standard 1.1.2: CSOs operate freely without unwarranted state interference in their internal governance and activities; Standard 1.1.3: CSOs can freely seek and secure financial resources from various domestic and foreign sources to support their activities; Standard 1.2.1: CSO representatives, individually or through their organizations, enjoy freedom of peaceful assembly; Standard 2.1.1: Tax benefits are available on various income sources of CSOs; Standard 2.2.1: Public funding is available for institutional development of CSOs, project support and co-financing of EU
About the project and the Matrix
1) Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey.
11
and other grants; Standard 2.2.2: Public funding is distributed in a prescribed and transparent manner; Standard 2.3.1: CSOs are treated in an equal manner to other employers; Standard 2.3.2: There are enabling volunteering policies and laws; Standard 3.1.2: The state recognizes, through the operation of its institutions, the importance of the development of and cooperation with the sector; Standard 3.2.1: There are standards enabling CSO involvement in decision-making, which allow for CSO input in a timely manner; Standard 3.2.3: CSO representatives are equal partners in cross-sector bodies and are selected through clearly defined criteria and processes; Standard 3.3.1: CSOs are engaged in different services and compete for state contracts on an equal basis to
other providers. The five (5) elected standards that are monitored in Albania, are as follows: Standard 3.1.1: The state recognizes, through the operation of its institutions, the importance of the development of and cooperation with the sector; Standard 3.2.2: All draft policies and laws are easily accessible to the public in a timely manner; Standard 3.3.2: The state has committed to funding services and the funding is predictable and available over a longer-term period; Standard 3.3.3: The state has clearly defined procedures for contracting services which allow for transparent selection of service providers, including CSOs; Standard 3.3.4: There is a clear system of accountability, monitoring and evaluation of service provision.
12
About the Monitoring Report
As part of the projects “Balkan Civil Society Acquis – Strengthening the Advocacy and Monitoring Potential and Capacities of Civil Society Organizations” and “Increase Citizen Participation in Policy Making and Implementation”, Partners Albania carried out for the second consecutive year the research which resulted in the Monitoring Matrix Report 2014. The research was carried out in the period of September – November 2014. The scope of this monitoring report is to give an overview of issues concerning the enabling environment of CSOs in Albania and to provide recommendations on how these issues can be addressed and solved. This year report is focused on twelve (12) core standards and five (5) elected standards. The elected standards belong to the Area 3 of the MM: CSO – Government relationship, and were considered important to be monitored, as they are related with the commitments made by the Albanian government in the National Conference “Social Partners – Time for Action” organized by Partners Albania on December 20132.
This MM Report 2014 prepared by Partners Albania is based on a review of Albanian legislation, policies, studies, and reports used to evaluate the legal indicators of the Monitoring Matrix, as well as survey, and in-depth interviews with CSOs representatives used to evaluate the practical indicators of the Matrix3.
The Monitoring Matrix on Enabling Environment for Civil Society Development
This Monitoring Report is part of the activities of the “Balkan Civil Society Acquis-S t r e n g t h e n i n g the Advocacy and Monitoring Pote-ntial and Capacities of CSOs” project funded by the EU and the Balkan Trust for Democracy (BTD) and “Increase Citizen Participation in Policy Making and Implementation”, project funded by Olof Palme International Center in Albania with funding from the Swedish Government. This Monitoring Report is the first of this kind to be published on a yearly basis for at least the 48-month dura-tion of the project. The monitoring is based on the Monitoring Matrix on Enabling Environment for Civil Society Development (CSDev). It is part of a series of country reports covering 8 coun-tries in the Western Balkans and Turkey4. A re-gional Monitoring Report is also available sum-marizing findings and recommendations for all countries and a web platform offering access to monitoring data per country and sub-area at www.monitoringmatrix.net.
2) http://www.partnersalbania.org/?fq=brenda&m=news&gj=gj1&lid=110 3) http://monitoringmatrix.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/BCSDN_Monitoring_Matrix-tool-kit.pdf 4) Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey.
II. Introduction
The overall objective of the project is to strength-en the foundations for monitoring and advocacy on issues related to en-abling environment and sustainability of civil soci-ety at regional and coun-try level and to strengthen structures for CSO inte-gration and participation in EU policy and accession process on European and country level.
13
The Monitoring Matrix presents the main principles and standards that have been identified as crucial to exist in order for the legal environment to be considered as supportive and enabling for the operations of CSOs. It underscores the fact that enabling environment is a complex concept, which includes various areas and depends on several factors and phases of development of the society and the civil society sector.
This Matrix does not aim to embrace all enabling environment issues, rather it high-lights those that the experts have found to be most impor-tant for the countries which they operate in. Therefore, the stan-dards and indicators
have been formulated with consideration of the cur-rent state of development and diversity in the coun-tries of the Western Balkans and Turkey. They have been drawn from the experiences of the CSOs in the countries in terms of the legal environment as well as the practice and challenges with its implementa-tion. The development of the principles, standards and indicators have been done with consideration of the internationally guaranteed freedoms and rights and best regulatory practices at the European Union level and in European countries.
The areas are defined by key principles which are further elaborated by specific standards. In order to enable local CSOs, donors or other interested parties to review and monitor the legal environment and practices of its application, the standards are further explained through indicators. The full Matrix is available in VI. Findings and Recommendation section.
The development of the Monitoring Matrix on enabling environment for CSDev was part of a
collective effort of CSO experts and practitioners from the BCSDN network of members and partners and with expert and strategic support by ECNL. The 11-member expert team spanned a variety of non-profit and CSO specific knowledge and experience, both legal and practical, and included experts from 10 Balkan countries. The work on the Matrix included working meetings and on-line work by experts, which was then scrutinized via stakeholder focus group and public consultations. The work on the development of the Matrix was supported by USAID, Pact. Inc, and ICNL within the Legal Enabling Environment Program (LEEP)/Legal Innovation Grant and Balkan Trust for Democracy (BTD) and “Increase citizen participation in policy making and implementation”, project funded by Olof Palme International Center in Albania with funding from the Swedish Government.
Civil Society and Civil Society Development (CSDev) in Albania
The development of civil society in Albania over the past two decades hinged on major legal and institutional shifts that tended to create a more enabling environment for CSOs. The 1990s marked a rapid growth of the CSO sector with the end of totalitarian rule and the transition to democracy. Civil society developed concurrently with the creation and development of the private sector and a free market economy, as a key element for the functioning of the democracy and good governance in the country.
There are approximately 8,449 CSOs registered in Albania5. Based on their form of registration6, they are divided into 6,263 associations, 846 foundations, 1095 centers and 245 are included under the category “others”7. However there are no official data accessible to the public on the number and value of CSOs in the economy of the country, as there are no clear and official data on how many of these are still active, or have re-
5) Data are received at Court of First Instance in Tirana, upon request by Partners Albania in April 2014.6) Law No.8788, dated May 7, 2001 On Non-Profit Organizations, Article 10 Division of Non-profit organizations
according to Organisation, and Article 11 Center 7) The category “other” includes organizations that heavy e different name from Association, Center of
Foundation in the register. This includes: Chamber of Commerce, federation, union, institute, agency, committee, fund, judicial person (mainly religious), economic research, group, council, club, movement, academy, alliance, joining, office, forum, organization, or that do not have a specific definition attached to their name as The Red Cross.
8) Open.dat.al is a project of Albanian Institute of Science. The aim of the project is to collect and save data on the socio-economic indicators in the country.
The Matrix is organized around three areas, each divided by sub-areas:
1. Basic Legal Guarantees of Freedoms;
2. Framework for CSOs’ Financial Viability and Sustainability;
3. Government – CSO Relationship.
14
registered under the Law No.8788, dated May 7, 2001 On Non-Profit Organizations. Referring to the project open.data.al8, there is an increased number of active CSOs from 794 CSOs in 2005 to 2110 CSOs in 2013. These data also shows that there is an average of 170 new CSOs registered annually from 2005-2013, with the highest number of CSOs established in 2013, respectively 254 CSOs9. The figure provide by open.data.al remains questionable since it reflects only the CSOs registered with the tax authorities, while not all CSOs necessarily register with tax authorities until they get a grant and/or it is required by the donor.
The legal and regulatory framework for CSOs has been subject to changes over the years. The legal framework for the establishment and registering of CSOs is favorable and in line with international standards. The legal framework for the fiscal treatment of CSOs remains one of the main challenges that needs to be addressed, despite new amendments and legal framework adopted by the end of 2014, which brings more clarity in the economic activity of CSOs.
Changes in the legal framework have been associated with capacity building and organizational development of CSOs, aiming to strengthen their role and contribute in the society, being an equal partner to the state in the strategic developments of the country. The national conference “Social Partners – Time for Action” showed that a unified civil society could bring to the table a high level discussion with the government, as well as a development platform for the creation of an enabling environment for civil society well prepared and presented by experienced civil society experts. About 130 representatives of CSOs in the National Conference discussed and provided their recommendations for policy and legal changes around the three pillars of Monitoring Matrix: Civil society organizations sector involvement in policy making and decision making, and the state support in this process; Support of civil society organizations sector through an enabling legal framework; Civil society organizations sector as a social partner of state in providing services for citizens and public institutions.
The conference resulted in a joint Statement of Representatives of Civil Society in Albania regarding the institutionalization of the relationship between the government and civil society organizations, and the advancement of the legal framework on some of the most pressing issues for CSOs. The statement was presented to the Deputy Prime Minister Mr. Niko Peleshi, in the presence of HE Mr. Alexander Arvizu, US Ambassador in Albania, HE Mr. Ettore Sequi, Head of EU Delegation in Albania, members of Albanian Parliament and government, representatives of donor community, local and international organizations. Recognizing the irreparable role of CSOs in strengthening the democracy and sustainable development of the country, Mr. Peleshi, expressed the commitment of the government to make the cooperation with civil society sustainable and raise it at a higher level.
The conference established the bases of an official dialogue with the new government for the creation of an enabling environment for civil society, towards advancement of civil society as a social partner and an integral part of policy making and decision making processes in the country. As a result of this dialogue in 2014 started the preparation of strategic documents and establishment of mechanisms that would further institutionalize this partnership.
Existence of a strong and active civil society is considered a key factor for Albania in the European integration process. After Albania was granted the status of the EU candidate country in June 2014, civil society experts have been involved in each stage of the consultation process, considered by the European Commission as a valuable source of expertise for the assessment of the developments in their fields of engagement. On the other hand, after years of stagnation, and regression on some dimensions, regarding the relations between the state and civil society, the state has started to apply a more open and collaborative approach with civil society in the preparation of new laws, bylaws, strategies and other policy documents supportive of the integration process of the country.
9) http://open.data.al/en/lajme/lajm/lang/en/id/1186/Tregues-statistikor-per-Organizata-Jofitimprurese-2005-2013
15
Specific features and challenges in applying the Matrix in Albania
From the launch of the monitoring cycle in 2013, Partners Albania aimed at a participatory and inclusive process while carrying out the research for the needs of the Monitoring Matrix report, presenting and discussing the Matrix with large number of CSOs representatives all over the country. This year the survey for the preparation of the MM report was conducted in 12 cities and around 180 CSOs have been contacted to give their input for the MM report, out of which 100 CSOs responded to the survey.
The questionnaire prepared for the survey included questions for 17 out of 24 total standards, leading to a reduction of questions compared with the survey for the preparation of the 2013 MM report. This contributed to a more in depth insight for closer monitoring of the issues selected.
One specific feature of the 2014 monitoring process was the discussions of the preliminary results in six cities (Tirana, Durrës, Elbasan, Shkodër, Vlorë, and Korçë) with 101 representatives of CSOs participating in total. The discussions enriched the findings of the monitoring report. A key challenge in the conduction of the survey on CSOs sector in Albania remains lack of official information on CSOs (number of CSOs, form of registration, geographical distribution, proportion according their field of activities, etc.). This situation makes the data gathering and analysis more challenging and time consuming.
The intensity of work in a limited timeframe was
another challenge for the survey team involved with the survey administration.Due to the complexity of the issues covered in the questionnaire, the questionnaire was filled by the executive director of a CSO through face to face or telephone interview, aiming to gather the necessary data required. This was challenging, due to their limited disposability and availability. The questionnaire was followed by in-depth interviews to explore contradicting issues or areas where more information was needed for the analysis purposes.
Another challenge was related with the difficulties to ensure proper and updated information from public authorities and institutions, through their means of information that would facilitate the process of desk research on legal issues.
Acknowledgements and thanks
The country Monitoring Matrix Report 2014 on Enabling Environment for Civil Society Development was prepared with collaborative effort and generous support of CSOs, experts and individuals.
Partners Albania would like to express its gratitude to the executive directors of CSOs who participated in the MM report, appreciating their cooperation, contribution and time devoted.
Partners Albania would like to express its gratitude to Balkan Civil Society Development Network (BCSDN) and the European Centre For-not-For Profit Law (ECNL) and Olof Palme International Center in Albania for their support in the development, orientation and implementation of this monitoring effort.
16
Overview of the methodological approach
The MM process was carried out during September – November 2014. Partners Albania employed a set of methodological tools, including both desk research and participatory approach in acquiring data and information with the overall goal of monitoring the legislation and practice indicators of the MM. The aim was to identify progress or lack of thereof in the enabling environment, inc. overall climate, legislation and its effective implementation for the operations of CSOs in Albania. In contrast the Monitoring process of 2013 when all the standards were monitored, this report highlights the findings on 17 standards on three areas of the Monitoring Matrix. The monitoring report was prepared through the following research phases:
1. Literature ReviewSince the Monitoring Matrix includes indicators for the evaluation of legislation and the practice, the literature review was carried out through:
1.1. Legal review – a desk research was carried out to review the legal framework and regulations for an enabling environment for CSOs. It included an overview and analysis of Albanian legislation (including implementation of regulations), as well as analyzes of the implementation of international conventions and regulations adopted by Albania;
1.2. Practice assessment based on secondary data – a desk research was carried out aiming to identify: (i) CSOs reports on needs assessment and their
implementation; (ii) media reports that cover practical implementation of the legislation; (iii) reports prepared by donor and international organizations; and (iv) analysis of the needs in the area/issues and international reports or comparative documents on the topic.
2. Survey The survey was conducted through the administration of the questionnaire with 100 CSOs. In order to compare the data with the previous year report, PA used the same sample of CSOs as in 2013 with some small changes that included: participation of new established CSOs registered in 2013 - 2014 and increased geographical coverage of CSOs from eight (8) cities in 2013 to twelve (12) cities in 2014. The questionnaire was administered through face to face and telephone interviews with executive directors of CSOs in the period of September – October 2014. The questionnaire was divided in four main sections: one section for each area of the Monitoring Matrix and one section for demographic data of the respondent and CSO. A combination of open-ended questions with questions with alternatives was used in the questionnaire, aiming to gather information on both perception and experience of the respondents on the indicators monitored. The information gather from the questionnaires was entered into a database and was processed and analyzed through SPSS.
3. In depth interviews Partners Albania carried out in depth interviews with selected executive directors of CSOs,
III. Methodology
17
addressing tailored questions related with some of the findings of the survey, and to get information on the changes in the legal framework for specific areas of the MM Report.
Participation of the CSO community Partners Albania utilized its own database of CSOs to inform and invite them to participate in the survey for the preparation of the Monitoring Matrix Report 2014. All the findings for the practice indicators are based on the information
and comments from the surveyed CSOs representatives regarding the implementation of the legal framework.
The survey was conducted in 12 cities. The selection of the sample was done in accordance with the number of CSOs located in each city, based on the database of Partners Albania. Graphic 1 presents the geographical distribution of the organizations that responded to the questionnaires.
Graphic 1. Map of the distribution of CSOs
Graphic 2. Form of registration of the organizations
1%
6%4%
4%
6%
6%
1%4%
1%7%55%
5%BERAT
DURRËS
ELBASAN
FIER
GJIROKASTËR
KORÇË
KUCOVE
POGRADEC
PUKË
SHKODER
TIRANË
VLORË
57%
18%
24%
1%
Association
Foundations
Centre
Social Enterprises
16%
38%
50%
65%
40%
56%
67%
35%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Business
Democracy
woman
Culture Education
Environment
Social Services
Youth
Health
81%
9%
7%
1% 2%
Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very Much
72%
13%
7%
3% 5%Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very Much
29%
31%
19%
17%
3%
1%
Less than 10 000 EUR
From 10,000 to 50,000 EUR
From 50,000 to 100,000 EUR
From 100,000 to 500,000 EUR
From 500,000 to 1,000,000 EUR
More than 1,000,000
2%1%
11%
22%
64%
Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very much
73%
15%
6%
1%
3%
1% 1%
0-5 employees
6-10 employees
11-15 employees
16-20 employees
21-25 employees
89 employees
97 employees
54%
11%
6%
14%
2%
1%1%
6%
1% 1%
2%
1%
0-10 volunteers
11-20 volunteers
21-30 volunteers
31-40 volunteers
41-50 volunteers
51-60 volunteers
61-70 volunteers
100 volunteers
120 volunteers
257 volunteers
8%
28%
51%
12%
1%
Very difficult
Difficult
Somehow difficult
Easy
Very easy
19%
21%
20%
11% Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very much
5%
1%
3%
91%
Not at all
Little
Somewhat
Enough
70%
14%
8%
4%4% 0-5 employees
6-10 employees
11-15 employees
16-20 employees
over 20 employees
29%
1%
6%4%
4%
6%
6%
1%4%
1%7%55%
5%BERAT
DURRËS
ELBASAN
FIER
GJIROKASTËR
KORÇË
KUCOVE
POGRADEC
PUKË
SHKODER
TIRANË
VLORË
57%
18%
24%
1%
Association
Foundations
Centre
Social Enterprises
16%
38%
50%
65%
40%
56%
67%
35%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Business
Democracy
woman
Culture Education
Environment
Social Services
Youth
Health
81%
9%
7%
1% 2%
Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very Much
72%
13%
7%
3% 5%Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very Much
29%
31%
19%
17%
3%
1%
Less than 10 000 EUR
From 10,000 to 50,000 EUR
From 50,000 to 100,000 EUR
From 100,000 to 500,000 EUR
From 500,000 to 1,000,000 EUR
More than 1,000,000
2%1%
11%
22%
64%
Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very much
73%
15%
6%
1%
3%
1% 1%
0-5 employees
6-10 employees
11-15 employees
16-20 employees
21-25 employees
89 employees
97 employees
54%
11%
6%
14%
2%
1%1%
6%
1% 1%
2%
1%
0-10 volunteers
11-20 volunteers
21-30 volunteers
31-40 volunteers
41-50 volunteers
51-60 volunteers
61-70 volunteers
100 volunteers
120 volunteers
257 volunteers
8%
28%
51%
12%
1%
Very difficult
Difficult
Somehow difficult
Easy
Very easy
19%
21%
20%
11% Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very much
5%
1%
3%
91%
Not at all
Little
Somewhat
Enough
70%
14%
8%
4%4% 0-5 employees
6-10 employees
11-15 employees
16-20 employees
over 20 employees
29%
With regards to the form of organization, the sample is composed of 57% associations, 24% centers, 18% foundations, and 1% social enterprises, as shown in Graphic 2. Social enterprises are not a legal form of registration recognized by the Albanian legislation, but
this alternative was included in the question, considering the recent developments for the preparation and adoption of a special law on social enterprises, and the operation of some CSOs as social enterprises.
18
Based on their responses with multiple choose, in the Graphic 3 below are configured the fields of work and main activities of the surveyed CSOs. As the graphic shows, there is a domination of CSOs
working in the youth and culture, education area, followed by CSOs working in the woman area, while there is a low representation from CSOs working in business area.
Graphic 3. Fields of work of CSOs
1%
6%4%
4%
6%
6%
1%4%
1%7%55%
5%BERAT
DURRËS
ELBASAN
FIER
GJIROKASTËR
KORÇË
KUCOVE
POGRADEC
PUKË
SHKODER
TIRANË
VLORË
57%
18%
24%
1%
Association
Foundations
Centre
Social Enterprises
16%
38%
50%
65%
40%
56%
67%
35%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Business
Democracy
woman
Culture Education
Environment
Social Services
Youth
Health
81%
9%
7%
1% 2%
Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very Much
72%
13%
7%
3% 5%Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very Much
29%
31%
19%
17%
3%
1%
Less than 10 000 EUR
From 10,000 to 50,000 EUR
From 50,000 to 100,000 EUR
From 100,000 to 500,000 EUR
From 500,000 to 1,000,000 EUR
More than 1,000,000
2%1%
11%
22%
64%
Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very much
73%
15%
6%
1%
3%
1% 1%
0-5 employees
6-10 employees
11-15 employees
16-20 employees
21-25 employees
89 employees
97 employees
54%
11%
6%
14%
2%
1%1%
6%
1% 1%
2%
1%
0-10 volunteers
11-20 volunteers
21-30 volunteers
31-40 volunteers
41-50 volunteers
51-60 volunteers
61-70 volunteers
100 volunteers
120 volunteers
257 volunteers
8%
28%
51%
12%
1%
Very difficult
Difficult
Somehow difficult
Easy
Very easy
19%
21%
20%
11% Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very much
5%
1%
3%
91%
Not at all
Little
Somewhat
Enough
70%
14%
8%
4%4% 0-5 employees
6-10 employees
11-15 employees
16-20 employees
over 20 employees
29%
1. Lessons-learnt • The inclusive and participatory approach
applied ensures a wide participation of CSOs and presented a broad frame of the development of the sector all over Albania.
• The Monitoring Matrix presents a com-prehensive and complex set of standards and areas and illustration with particular examples of cases was very valuable for the preparation of this monitoring report.
19
Area 1: Basic Legal Guarantees of Freedoms
Sub-area 1.1.: Freedom of associationThe evaluation of this sub-area is based on the following standards: Standard 1: CSOs operate freely without unwarranted state interference in their internal governance and activities; Standard 2: CSOs can freely seek and secure financial resources from various domestic and foreign sources to support their activities.
Freedom of association is guaranteed by the legal framework in Albania, as a constitutional right for any individual and legal entity without any age, nationality, legal capacity, gender, and ethnics based discrimination. In this regards, there are no changes in the legislation that would hinder or improve the environment for CSOs development in Albania. The registration of CSOs in Tirana Court of First Instance still represents a barrier and additional costs for individuals and
legal entities that aim to establish a CSO10.
The state guarantees the right of CSOs to regulate their internal structure and operating procedures without unwarranted state interference in their governance and activities. There are no practices of state interference identified such as: requirement of mandatory participation of a state representative in the Board of a CSO, or receive advance approval from the state for carrying out for their activities, etc. While there are no changes in the legal framework in this regards from 2013, the perception and experiences of CSOs related with the state interferences and invasive oversight from the state in their internal governance and activities have improved. Compared with the findings of MM Report 2013, there is an increase of 15% of surveyed CSOs who expressed that there is no practice of state interference in the internal governance, and an increase of 20% of surveyed CSOs stated that there is no practice of invasive oversight from the state.
IV. Findings and Recommendations
10) Monitoring Matrix on Enabling Environment for Civil Society Development, COUNTRY REPORT FOR ALBANIA 2013, pg. 17
20
Graphic 4. State interference in internal governance of CSOs
Graphic 5. Practices of invasive oversight from the state
1%
6%4%
4%
6%
6%
1%4%
1%7%55%
5%BERAT
DURRËS
ELBASAN
FIER
GJIROKASTËR
KORÇË
KUCOVE
POGRADEC
PUKË
SHKODER
TIRANË
VLORË
57%
18%
24%
1%
Association
Foundations
Centre
Social Enterprises
16%
38%
50%
65%
40%
56%
67%
35%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Business
Democracy
woman
Culture Education
Environment
Social Services
Youth
Health
81%
9%
7%
1% 2%
Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very Much
72%
13%
7%
3% 5%Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very Much
29%
31%
19%
17%
3%
1%
Less than 10 000 EUR
From 10,000 to 50,000 EUR
From 50,000 to 100,000 EUR
From 100,000 to 500,000 EUR
From 500,000 to 1,000,000 EUR
More than 1,000,000
2%1%
11%
22%
64%
Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very much
73%
15%
6%
1%
3%
1% 1%
0-5 employees
6-10 employees
11-15 employees
16-20 employees
21-25 employees
89 employees
97 employees
54%
11%
6%
14%
2%
1%1%
6%
1% 1%
2%
1%
0-10 volunteers
11-20 volunteers
21-30 volunteers
31-40 volunteers
41-50 volunteers
51-60 volunteers
61-70 volunteers
100 volunteers
120 volunteers
257 volunteers
8%
28%
51%
12%
1%
Very difficult
Difficult
Somehow difficult
Easy
Very easy
19%
21%
20%
11% Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very much
5%
1%
3%
91%
Not at all
Little
Somewhat
Enough
70%
14%
8%
4%4% 0-5 employees
6-10 employees
11-15 employees
16-20 employees
over 20 employees
29%
1%
6%4%
4%
6%
6%
1%4%
1%7%55%
5%BERAT
DURRËS
ELBASAN
FIER
GJIROKASTËR
KORÇË
KUCOVE
POGRADEC
PUKË
SHKODER
TIRANË
VLORË
57%
18%
24%
1%
Association
Foundations
Centre
Social Enterprises
16%
38%
50%
65%
40%
56%
67%
35%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Business
Democracy
woman
Culture Education
Environment
Social Services
Youth
Health
81%
9%
7%
1% 2%
Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very Much
72%
13%
7%
3% 5%Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very Much
29%
31%
19%
17%
3%
1%
Less than 10 000 EUR
From 10,000 to 50,000 EUR
From 50,000 to 100,000 EUR
From 100,000 to 500,000 EUR
From 500,000 to 1,000,000 EUR
More than 1,000,000
2%1%
11%
22%
64%
Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very much
73%
15%
6%
1%
3%
1% 1%
0-5 employees
6-10 employees
11-15 employees
16-20 employees
21-25 employees
89 employees
97 employees
54%
11%
6%
14%
2%
1%1%
6%
1% 1%
2%
1%
0-10 volunteers
11-20 volunteers
21-30 volunteers
31-40 volunteers
41-50 volunteers
51-60 volunteers
61-70 volunteers
100 volunteers
120 volunteers
257 volunteers
8%
28%
51%
12%
1%
Very difficult
Difficult
Somehow difficult
Easy
Very easy
19%
21%
20%
11% Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very much
5%
1%
3%
91%
Not at all
Little
Somewhat
Enough
70%
14%
8%
4%4% 0-5 employees
6-10 employees
11-15 employees
16-20 employees
over 20 employees
29%
Graphic 4 shows that 81% of the surveyed CSOs responded that there is “not at all” interference from the state in internal governance of CSOs, and Graphic 5 shows that 72% of the surveyed CSOs responded that there are “not at all” practices of invasive oversight from the state. The few organizations responding that there are “very much” interferences from the state in the internal governance of CSOs (2% of surveyed CSOs) and there are “very much” practices of invasive oversight from the state (5%), did not provided relevant examples from the experience of their organization to illustrate the response with concrete examples.
Law No. 9228, dated 29.04.2004 “For the Accounting and Financial Statement” and the Law No 10294 dated 01.07.2010 “On Public Financial Inspection and Reporting”, are the main laws regulating the CSOs financial reporting. These laws have not been a subject of change in 2014. Financial reporting is not adapted based on the specific characteristics of the work of CSOs, and is not proportionate to the size of the organizations and their type or scope of activities. The accounting and reporting forms for CSOs are not different from the accounting and reporting forms of businesses. With the amendments made in the Law on NPOs11, all financial reports prepared by CSOs for donors’
11) Law no. 92.2013 For some amendments in the law no. 8788, Date 7.5.2001 “on “Non-Profit Organizations”, amended
21
funds are subject of control by tax authorities and the General Directorate for Money Laundering, any time that is evaluated necessary from these authorities. After the adoption of the law For the Prevention of Money Laundry and Financing of Terrorism, in 200812, the legal and regulatory framework on CSOs have been changed and developed to address the issue. With the last amendments to the law on NPOs in 201313, there are included duties for the decision–making body and executive body with regards to money laundry and financing of terrorism, which are evasive and put the responsibility on these bodies to ensure that partner organizations and those providing funding, services and material support are not used or manipulated for terrorism reasons and money laundry. On November 19, 2014, the Ministry of Finance issued a directive for the supervision of CSOs from tax authorities, in support of the prevention of money laundry and financing of terrorism14, aiming to regulate the controlling procedures of CSOs by tax authorities in order to prevent their usage for money laundry and financing of terrorism. The directive provides for a strict supervision every six months for: 1) CSOs that exercise their activity without registering, 2) CSOs with a passive status, 3) and CSOs that do not submit their tax declarations following the requirements of the legislation in force15.
The law stipulates that the tax inspectors in charge for the supervision of CSOs should be specialized and trained to inspect the financial balance sheets of CSOs16, but the practice shows that there is lack of capacities of tax inspectors dealing with CSOs, so there is an urgent need for training of tax inspectors, in order to avoid abusive practices and to ensure correct implementation of the legal framework with regards to money laundry and financing of terrorism.
The NPO Law stipulates the transformation, merger, interruption of activity and dissolution of CSOs with its initiative and with court decision.
The sources of income of a non-profit organization are incomes from dues, when there are such, grants and donations by private or public subjects, local or foreign, as well as income from economic activity and the assets owned by the non-profit organization.17 In any case, the legislation does not present any legal barrier with regards to access to funding, for both local and foreign origin.
While there are no legal limitations that would prohibit CSOs to receive funds from different eligible sources of funding, there are practical reasons that make it difficult for CSOs to freely seek and secure funding from all sources of income. Funds from foreign donors remain the main source that could be freely seek and secured by CSOs (63% of surveyed CSOs expressed that they can freely seek and secure funds from foreign donors). By the other hand, it is difficult for most of CSOs to seek and secure state funds, as 69% of surveyed CSOs expressed that it is difficult to seek and secure funds from central government, 78% of surveyed CSOs expressed that it is difficult to seek and secure funds from local government, and 91% of surveyed CSOs expressed that it is difficult to seek and secure funds from public procurement. This situation remains problematic, and compared with the MM Report 2013, the number of CSOs that find it difficult to seek and secure funds from the state is increased, especially from public procurement, where almost all CSOs evaluated that they can not freely seek and secure funding from this source of incomes. The main reasons for this situation are related with:
• Bureaucratic and not transparent procedures in funds distribution;
• Lack of capacities of CSOs to participate in funding schemes;
• Nepotism and clientelism.
12) Law no. 9917, date 19.5.2008 For Prevention of Money Laundry and Financing of Terrorism13) Law no. 92/2013 For Some Additions and Changes in the Law No. 8788, Date 7.5.2001 For Non-For-Profit
Organisations, changed 14) Directive No. 22, date 19.11.2014 For Supervision of CSOs, from Tax Authorities, in Support of prevention of
Money Laundry and Financing of Terrorism 15) Ibid, Article 4 16) Ibid, Article 717) Law No.8788, dated 07.05.2001 on “Non-Profit Organizations”, Article 35
22
Another important source of incomes from CSOs is from economy activities. The existing legislation allows for CSOs to engage in economic activities18, aiming to generate income through development of their own services, in order to have a stable income source which is independent from the state or other donations. With the last amendments made to the NPO Law, it is clearly described the meaning of “economic activity”19. Nevertheless, despite the clarification between economic and non-economic activity, the existing legal framework is still not favorable toward the CSOs exercising economic activity. As a result, only 14% of surveyed CSOs
declare that they generate incomes from sales of goods and/or services.
Funds from individuals and corporations are another source of incomes for CSOs, although still not considered and used by CSOs at a significant level. Even though in the World Giving Index 2014, Albania have seen its score rise with 10 points, above its five-year average score20, the percentage of CSOs that find it easy to seek and secure funds from individual and corporate donations, remains the same as the previous year (26% of surveyed CSOs).
18) Ibid, Article 219) Law no. 92.2013 For some amendments in the law no. 8788, Date 7.5.2001 “on “Non-Profit Organizations”,
amended, Article 120) WORLD GIVING INDEX 2014 A global view of giving trends November 2014, pg.2721) http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/civil_society/doc_guidelines_cs_support.pdf 22) Articles 46, 4723) Law No.8773, dated 23.4.200124) Ibid, Article 5
The assessment of Standard 1, Sub area 1.1., reflects also the assessment for the following indicators of the EU CS Guidelines 2014-202021: 1.1.a. Quality assessment of existing legislation and policy framework;1.1.b. Progress with the adoption and implementation of relevant legislation; 2.1.a. CSOs' perception of the ease and effectiveness of financial rules and reporting requirements (disaggregated by type / size of CSO); and 2.1.b. Quality assessment of financial rules (with the focus on built-in mechanisms that financial rules and obligations change as the turn-over and non-commercial activities change). The existing legislation and policy framework for the exercise of right of association, in general is favorable, enabling and in line with international standards. There is a more positive perception and experiences of CSOs with its implementation in 2014, compared with 2013. The obligation to register a CSO at the Tirana Court of First Instance presents additional costs for individuals and legal entities that aim to establish a CSO. With regards to the financial rules and reporting requirements, they are not evaluated as clear, effective or supportive for the functioning of CSOs. They are not based on the characteristics of CSOs, and are not proportionate to CSOs’ turnover (no different formats). The accounting and reporting formats are not different from the accounting and reporting forms of businesses.
Sub-area 1.2.: Related-freedomsThe evaluation of this sub-area is based on the following standard: CSO representatives, individually or through their organization, enjoy freedom of peaceful assembly.
The legal framework in Albania regarding peaceful assembly has not been subject of amendments in the last year. It guarantees the right to enjoy
freedom of peaceful assembly as a fundamental human right, based on the Albanian Constitution22
and in the Law on Assembly23. Those seeking to assembly are not required by the law to obtain permission to do so. They are only required to present a notification letter to the chief of police commissariat no later than three (3) days from the date of the assembly24.
23
25) 2013 CSO sustainability index for central and eastern Europe and Eurasia 17th edition - June 2014, pg.13
The assessment of Standard 2, of Sub area 1.1., reflects also the assessment for the following indicators of the EU CS Guidelines 2014-2020: 1.1.a. Quality assessment of existing legislation and policy framework, and 1.1.b. Progress with the adoption and implementation of relevant legislation.The existing legislation and policy framework for the exercise of right of assembly has not been subject of changes in 2014, and guarantees the right of freedom of assembly for all individuals and legal entities to peaceful assemble. The legislation requires only prior notification from the leaders of the assembly for exercising freedom of assembly. Surveyed CSOs report that it is noticed a more positive attitude of the state to respect this fundamental human right, compared to the year 2013.
Area 2: Framework for CSO Financial Viability and Sustainability
Sub-area 2.1.: Tax/fiscal treatment for CSOs and their donors
The evaluation of this sub-area is based on the following Standard 1: Tax benefits are available on various income sources of CSOs. As cited in the CSO Sustainability Index 201325 “financial viability continues to remain the most pressing issue facing civil society in Albania”. The main source of funding remains grants from foreign donors, while domestic sources (central and local government, donations, paid services, etc.) remains at low level, thus not contributing significantly to the financial viability
and sustainability of CSOs. As it is reflected in the graphic 6 below, 60% of the surveyed organisations reported annual incomes of up to 50 000 euro. There are only two surveyed organizations that have reported significant annual incomes of between 500 000 – 1 million euro: ABC Foundation, and Dorcas Foundation. While ABC Foundation is established through business funds as endowments and operates as a donor agency in the country, Dorcas Aid International Foundation is a charity foundation operating in 18 countries with head quarters in Netherlands. The only one organization that has a budget of over 1 million euro is SOS Children Villages, member of the international organization, SOS Kinderdorf International, present in 132 countries all over the world in assistance to children, families and communities.
While there are no changes in the legal aspect, there are considerable changes in the perception and experiences of CSOs with regards of exercising their right of assembly, in all indicators measured compared with the MM Report 2013. So, there is an increased of 14% of CSOs which declare that the freedom of assembly is respected; an increased of 20% of CSOs which declare that there are cases of spontaneous and simultaneous assembly without prior written authorization; an increased of 11% of CSOs which declare that there is no excessive use of force exercised by
law enforcement bodies during assemblies.
These figures reinforce the fact that the state recognizes as its own obligation to facilitate and protect peaceful assembly. This is also evidenced during the assembly organized by civil society and citizens in November 2013 over government plans to destroy Syrian chemical weapons in Albania. And more importantly the opinion of the civil society was taken into consideration by the Government and Prime Minister in the final decision with regards to the above mentioned issue.
24
With regards to the fiscal treatment of CSOs and their donors, with the last amendments of the Law on NPOs26, all incomes from traditional non-profit sources, as donations, grants, bank deposits, and membership fee are not subject to income taxes. While CSOs performing economic activities are subject of tax on incomes, only in the cases when these incomes are not used for activities for which the organization is registered27. Another significant change brought by these amendments is the description of “economic activity” and “grant”28, thus clarifying the meaning of both concepts. Although these amendments have a positive contribution towards improving the legal framework for CSOs development in Albania, in 2014 CSOs still faced many challenges in their operations due to the fiscal regime in place. Considering the situation, fiscal treatment of CSOs was one of three priority issues addressed in the National Conference “Social Partners – Time for Action” organized by Partners Albania in December 2013, in cooperation with the Prime minister’s office and support of US Embassy in Tirana and EU Delegation in Tirana. More specifically, among other issues, the CSOs asked for the engagement of Government to address the following priority issues with regard to the
improvement of regulatory environment for the activity of civil society organizations in the country:
a. Clarify the grants’ exemption from the VAT scheme.
b. Guaranty VAT reimbursement for EU funds in support of CSOs, as part of Albanian government obligation toward European Union.
c. Regulate and differentiate the economic activity of CSO’s.
Following the conference, in 2014, the Working Group for an Enabling Environment for Civil Society in Albania, advocated for the above issues to be implemented, and as a result there are some developments, even though not fully meeting the requirements of CSOs, reflected in the new VAT Law29, and in the Decision of Council of Ministers No.953, date 29.12.2014 that will enter into force starting from January 2015.
Some of the main changes in the VAT law affecting the sector are as follows:
a) In its Article 3, the law stipulates that any non-profit sources of income of CSOs as
26) Law no. 92/2013 For some Addition and Changes on Law no. 8788, date 7.05.2001 “For non – profit Organization”
27) Ibid28) Ibid, Article 1 29) Law 92/2014 Date 24.07.2014 On VAT in the Republic of Albania
Graphic 6. Annual incomes of CSOs
1%
6%4%
4%
6%
6%
1%4%
1%7%55%
5%BERAT
DURRËS
ELBASAN
FIER
GJIROKASTËR
KORÇË
KUCOVE
POGRADEC
PUKË
SHKODER
TIRANË
VLORË
57%
18%
24%
1%
Association
Foundations
Centre
Social Enterprises
16%
38%
50%
65%
40%
56%
67%
35%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Business
Democracy
woman
Culture Education
Environment
Social Services
Youth
Health
81%
9%
7%
1% 2%
Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very Much
72%
13%
7%
3% 5%Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very Much
29%
31%
19%
17%
3%
1%
Less than 10 000 EUR
From 10,000 to 50,000 EUR
From 50,000 to 100,000 EUR
From 100,000 to 500,000 EUR
From 500,000 to 1,000,000 EUR
More than 1,000,000
2%1%
11%
22%
64%
Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very much
73%
15%
6%
1%
3%
1% 1%
0-5 employees
6-10 employees
11-15 employees
16-20 employees
21-25 employees
89 employees
97 employees
54%
11%
6%
14%
2%
1%1%
6%
1% 1%
2%
1%
0-10 volunteers
11-20 volunteers
21-30 volunteers
31-40 volunteers
41-50 volunteers
51-60 volunteers
61-70 volunteers
100 volunteers
120 volunteers
257 volunteers
8%
28%
51%
12%
1%
Very difficult
Difficult
Somehow difficult
Easy
Very easy
19%
21%
20%
11% Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very much
5%
1%
3%
91%
Not at all
Little
Somewhat
Enough
70%
14%
8%
4%4% 0-5 employees
6-10 employees
11-15 employees
16-20 employees
over 20 employees
29%
25
membership fee, funds or grants, and donations are not subject of VAT30, thus clarifying the grants’ exemption from VAT scheme.
b) The economic activity of CSOs is regulated in the law. Economic activities falling under social, educative, cultural and sportive character, called “activities of public interest” are exempted from the VAT31. The Decision of the Council of Ministers32 sets the criteria for CSOs to be exempted from VAT and the criteria for the evaluation of the non-profit purpose of the economic activity of CSOs. The Decision establishes a ceiling of 20% of the annual turnover of the organization resulting from the economic activity, and sets a minimum limit of 5 million ALL in a calendar year to be registered in the VAT scheme.
c) Public Benefit Status is abolished. Now, the goods and services offered by non-for-profits and excluded by VAT are defined in the law as well as the new procedure, as discussed in point b).
d) The Law on NPOs requires regulation of fundraising activity, but until now it has been unregulated. The government decision introduces rules regarding VAT application for fundraising activities performed by NPOs.
e) Albanian government obligation to reimburse VAT occurred as part of finance and grants agreements is reinforced in the new VAT law33. This is an encouragement for CSOs, to be reimbursed by the state authorities for EU funded projects, based on the agreement between the Government and EU Delegation in Albania and the Instruction No. 4, dated
January 22, 2013 on VAT reimbursement for IPA grants issued by the Ministry of Finance, as well as other bilateral agreements with foreign donors.
With regards to passive investments, the only change comes from the last amendment of the NPO Law in 2013, in which, incomes on CSOs realized through bank interest, one of the forms of passive investments, are exempted from tax on income34.
There is no specific law for the establishment of endowment, but in practice PA identified one example of endowment operating in the country. Albanian Besa Capital (ABC) Foundation35 established in 2008, with a mission to support private entrepreneurships, especially small and medium businesses in Albania. Part of the foundation works is support of projects from civil society organisations. The Foundation was established by Besa Fund, a microfinance institution with a mission to contribute to the country economic growth in the urban and semi urban areas, by promoting and financing small and medium enterprises sector in Albania. When ABC Foundation was established, part of the capital of Besa Fund was given to the foundation to make it operational as an initial capital. The two sources of incomes of the foundation are: bank deposit interests (the initial capital) and revenues from being a shareholder of Besa Fund. The income from the endowments is sufficient to cover a large part of the operation of the Foundation and there are no difficulties, barriers, difficult procedures for its operation.
30) Ibid, Article 3 31) Ibid, Article 51, letter “ë”, “f”,“I”, “j”, “k”.32) Decision of Council of Ministers No. 953, date 29.12.201433) Law 92/2014 Date 24.07.2014 On VAT in the Republic of Albania, Article 77, point 234) Law no. 92/2013 For some Addition and Changes on Law no. 8788, date 7.05.2001 “For non – profit
Organization” 35) http://www.abcfoundation.info
26
Sub-area 2.2.: State support
The evaluation of this sub-area is based on the following standards: Standard 1: Public funding is available for institutional development of CSOs, project support and co-financing of EU and other grants; Standard 2: Public funding is distributed in a prescribed and transparent way.
Public funding are not available for institutional and program development of CSOs, as 64% of
the surveyed CSOs declare that public funds do not respond to their needs at all, as shown in graphic 7 below. There are only 24 out of 100 surveyed CSOs that have received public funds in 2013-2014. The amount of public funds benefited from each organization varies from 1 400 Euro – 20 000 Euro for 23 surveyed CSOs, while there is an exemption of 100 000 Euro, received by Millieukontakt Albania for the implementation of a project funded by Italian – Albanian Dept for Development SWAP Program36.
Graphic 7. Public funding responds to the needs of CSOs
1%
6%4%
4%
6%
6%
1%4%
1%7%55%
5%BERAT
DURRËS
ELBASAN
FIER
GJIROKASTËR
KORÇË
KUCOVE
POGRADEC
PUKË
SHKODER
TIRANË
VLORË
57%
18%
24%
1%
Association
Foundations
Centre
Social Enterprises
16%
38%
50%
65%
40%
56%
67%
35%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Business
Democracy
woman
Culture Education
Environment
Social Services
Youth
Health
81%
9%
7%
1% 2%
Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very Much
72%
13%
7%
3% 5%Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very Much
29%
31%
19%
17%
3%
1%
Less than 10 000 EUR
From 10,000 to 50,000 EUR
From 50,000 to 100,000 EUR
From 100,000 to 500,000 EUR
From 500,000 to 1,000,000 EUR
More than 1,000,000
2%1%
11%
22%
64%
Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very much
73%
15%
6%
1%
3%
1% 1%
0-5 employees
6-10 employees
11-15 employees
16-20 employees
21-25 employees
89 employees
97 employees
54%
11%
6%
14%
2%
1%1%
6%
1% 1%
2%
1%
0-10 volunteers
11-20 volunteers
21-30 volunteers
31-40 volunteers
41-50 volunteers
51-60 volunteers
61-70 volunteers
100 volunteers
120 volunteers
257 volunteers
8%
28%
51%
12%
1%
Very difficult
Difficult
Somehow difficult
Easy
Very easy
19%
21%
20%
11% Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very much
5%
1%
3%
91%
Not at all
Little
Somewhat
Enough
70%
14%
8%
4%4% 0-5 employees
6-10 employees
11-15 employees
16-20 employees
over 20 employees
29%
36) http://www.iadsa.info/index.php?lang=337) Law No. 10093, date 09.03.2009 “For the Organization and Functioning of Civil Society Support Agency”
The assessment of Standard 1 of Sub area 2.1., reflects also the assessment for the following indicator of the EU CS Guidelines 2014-2020: 2.3.a. Quality of the system of tax benefits for the CSOs’ operational and economic activities. There are some developments on the fiscal legislation on CSOs in 2014, as a result of the adoption of the new Law on VAT. Incomes from CSOs mission-related economic activity are not subject to income tax. “Activities with public interest”, as specified in the Law on VAT are exempted from VAT. The decision of the Council of Ministers No. 953, date 29.12.2014 sets the criteria for CSOs to be exempted from VAT and the criteria for the evaluation of the non-profit purpose of the economic activity of CSO. The Decision establishes a ceiling up of 20% of the annual turnover of the organization resulting from the economic activity, and sets a minimum limit of 5 million ALL in a calendar year to be registered in the VAT scheme.
The Agency for the Support of Civil Society is the main public entity providing public funds for CSOs in 2014. This mechanism, established through e special law37, is centralized and targets
CSOs specifically. The budget allocated to the Agency from the state budget 2014 to support civil society through grants, was around 715,000 Euro (100,000,000 ALL). During 2014 the Agency
27
announced two calls for proposals. The first call was published on May 2014 and the second call was announced on August 2014. Until September 2014, the Agency has distributed 51% of the annual budget for CSOs to disburse the funding for awarded CSOS in the third and forth calls for proposals lunched in 2012, and in the fifth and sixth calls lunched in 201438, in which a number of 64 CSOs were awarded.
The priority areas of funding are in line with the strategic priorities of the government, in respect with law for the establishment of the agency, and do not consider the needs and priorities of the sector. While financing for institutional support as strategic investments for CSOs is one of the types of support that the agency should provide for CSOs, according to the Regulation of the Procedures with Grants, yet it is not practiced by the Agency. Aiming to increase project support and co-financing of CSOs projects, the ASCS is working for the creation of a Joint Fund with other donors, to support common projects of strategic importance in the country. In the meeting of November 17, 2014 of the Supervisory Board of the Agency it was decided that 20% of the grant fund of ASCS shall be part of the joint fund to finance strategic projects39.
Improvement of regulatory framework and work practices of the Agency for the Support of Civil Society, as an important mechanism to support the contribution of civil society organizations in strengthening democracy and sustainable development in the country, was one of the priority issues addressed in the National Conference “Social Partners – Time for Action”. New members of the Supervisory Board were selected and a new Executive Director of the agency was appointed at the beginning of the year. In a policy paper on ASCS prepared by Institute for Democracy and Mediation (IDM) is cited that “transparency and inclusiveness of the selection process for ASCS board and Executive Director has been partially considered”40.
The new executive director and board of ASCS have followed a more open approach with CSOs in 2014, evidenced by conduction of a series of consultative meetings with CSOs for the development of a strategic partnership, in the frame of the preparation of the Mid-term and Long-term Strategy of the Agency41, preparation and publication of online Newsletter, participation in important initiatives for the sector, as the establishment of the National Council for Civil Society, etc.
Although, CSOs are not satisfied with the functioning of ASCS in 2014 and have expressed their concerns mostly related with:
• Burdensome procedures and extra costs and insufficient time for the application procedure;
• Lack of transparence in the selection process and in providing feedback on the reasons for rejection of an application;
• Considerable number of CSOs registered in 2014 were awarded undermining the well established organization with a tracked record in the sector;
• Pre - selection of the winners; • No information provided in the last call
for proposals related to the minimum and maximum budget limit for a project submitted.
In addition to the funds from ASCS, during 2014, the Ministry of Culture has granted public funds aiming to promote art and culture across Albania. Until November 2014, the Ministry has lunched two calls for proposals, one in January 2014, and one in May 2014. The calls have not targeted CSOs specifically, but a number of 53 CSOs working in the field of art and culture have benefited from these grants in January and May 2014. The total fund of the call lunched in May was 18 000 0000 ALL42, and a CSO could apply with a total budget of 100 000 ALL – 1 500 000 ALL43, while for the call lunched in January a CSO could apply with a total budget of 100 000 ALL - 1 500 000 ALL44.
38) http://www.amshc.gov.al/web/raporte/monitorimi/2014/Raporti_per_3-mujorin_3_te_vitit_2014.pdf 39) http://www.amshc.gov.al/web/newsletter/2014/3.pdf 40) Bringing ASCS closer to civil society, Gjergji Vurmo & Orsiola Kurti, IDM, pg.241) www.amshc.gov.al/web/veprimtari/2014/2014.10.7-9-Takime-Konsultative-english.php 42) http://www.kultura.gov.al/al/newsroom/njoftime/thirrja-per-projekt-propozime-12-30-maj-2014-projektet-e-
perzgjedhura-per-mbeshtetje 43) http://www.kultura.gov.al/al/newsroom/njoftime/thirrje-per-projekt-propozime-ne-fushat-e-artit-dhe-
kultures&page=644) http://www.kultura.gov.al/al/newsroom/njoftime/aplikimi-per-financimin-dhe-mbeshtetjen-e-projekteve
28
Another source of public funding for CSOs delivering social services is the National Lottery established through a special law in 201345. It is specified in the law that an obligatory contribution of 2,2 % of the annual turnover of the licensed should be dedicated to the “good issues”. The selection of projects, organizations or events that will benefit from this fund will be done from a Board for Good Issues that will be established through a decision of the Council of Ministers yet to be issued. It will be composed by four representatives of Ministry of Finance and three representatives of the licensed company. The Board will make its decisions based on the procedures and criteria established through the Decision of the Councils of Ministers and a Directive of the Minister of Finance
yet to be issued. The composition of the Board with representatives only from the Ministry of Finance and the licensed company, puts a question mark on the quality of projects to be funded through the National Lottery.
Compared with the MM Report 2013, there are no significant changes in the perception of CSOs with regards to the transparency and predictability of public financing, considering them as partially achieved. So, 51% of surveyed CSOs declare that financing is not predictable, against 58% of surveyed CSOs in 2013, while 58% of surveyed CSOs declare that participation of CSOs in public financing cycle is not transparent, towards 57% of surveyed CSOs in 2013.
The assessment of Standard 1, Sub area 2.2., reflects also the assessment for the following indicators of the EU CS Guidelines 2014-2020: 2.4.a. Ratio of amount sought vs. amount approved/disbursed annually through state funding to CSOs. (This proves availability of funds) and 2.4.b Quality of state funding frameworks for civil society organizations (focusing on procedural document). The only state mechanism with a mission to provide public funds specifically for CSOs is the Agency for Support of Civil Society. Until September 2014, the Agency has disbursed 51% of the total annual amount of the state funding approved for CSOs. Funding procedures are clearly described and publicly available in the legal framework and internal regulations of the agency, but the implementation of this framework remains problematic, as CSOs evaluate the procedures as burdensome and the process not transparent.
45) Law no. 95/2013 For the Approval of the Licensing Agreement for the National Lottery between the Ministry of Finances, as the authorizing authority, and the “OESTERREICHISCHE LOTTERIEN”, GMBH company, through “OLG PROJECT” SHPK
46) Law No.7703, dated 11.5.1993 “For Social Insurances in The Republic of Albania”
Sub-area 2.3.: Human resources
The evaluation of this sub-area is based on the following standards: Standard 1: CSOs are treated in an equal manner to other employers; Standard 2: There are enabling volunteering policies and laws.
The Albanian legislation related to human resources is unified for all employers and applied without differential treatment of CSOs. They are treated in an equal manner and are subject to the same requirements and obligations by the law as other employers, without any discrimination or incentives. The same situation is reflected also in the findings of the survey with CSOs, as 45% of
them declare that state policies on employment are not considered stimulant. There are no national statistics and information on the number of employed people in the civil society sector. The legal framework on social insurances in place46 remains problematic for CSOs with regards to the obligations to pay insurances for at least one employee, even for the periods of time in which the organization has no projects running, no activities and no funds. CSOs have reported that they have been subject of penalties from tax authorities for this reason.
Based on the findings of the survey conducted by PA, as reflected in the graphic 8 and graphic 9 below, most of the organizations that
29
47) 2013 CSO sustainability index for central and eastern Europe and Eurasia 17th edition - June 2014, pg.13
Graphic 8. Full-time employees
Graphic 9. Part-time employees
1%
6%4%
4%
6%
6%
1%4%
1%7%55%
5%BERAT
DURRËS
ELBASAN
FIER
GJIROKASTËR
KORÇË
KUCOVE
POGRADEC
PUKË
SHKODER
TIRANË
VLORË
57%
18%
24%
1%
Association
Foundations
Centre
Social Enterprises
16%
38%
50%
65%
40%
56%
67%
35%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Business
Democracy
woman
Culture Education
Environment
Social Services
Youth
Health
81%
9%
7%
1% 2%
Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very Much
72%
13%
7%
3% 5%Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very Much
29%
31%
19%
17%
3%
1%
Less than 10 000 EUR
From 10,000 to 50,000 EUR
From 50,000 to 100,000 EUR
From 100,000 to 500,000 EUR
From 500,000 to 1,000,000 EUR
More than 1,000,000
2%1%
11%
22%
64%
Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very much
73%
15%
6%
1%
3%
1% 1%
0-5 employees
6-10 employees
11-15 employees
16-20 employees
21-25 employees
89 employees
97 employees
54%
11%
6%
14%
2%
1%1%
6%
1% 1%
2%
1%
0-10 volunteers
11-20 volunteers
21-30 volunteers
31-40 volunteers
41-50 volunteers
51-60 volunteers
61-70 volunteers
100 volunteers
120 volunteers
257 volunteers
8%
28%
51%
12%
1%
Very difficult
Difficult
Somehow difficult
Easy
Very easy
19%
21%
20%
11% Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very much
5%
1%
3%
91%
Not at all
Little
Somewhat
Enough
70%
14%
8%
4%4% 0-5 employees
6-10 employees
11-15 employees
16-20 employees
over 20 employees
29%
1%
6%4%
4%
6%
6%
1%4%
1%7%55%
5%BERAT
DURRËS
ELBASAN
FIER
GJIROKASTËR
KORÇË
KUCOVE
POGRADEC
PUKË
SHKODER
TIRANË
VLORË
57%
18%
24%
1%
Association
Foundations
Centre
Social Enterprises
16%
38%
50%
65%
40%
56%
67%
35%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Business
Democracy
woman
Culture Education
Environment
Social Services
Youth
Health
81%
9%
7%
1% 2%
Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very Much
72%
13%
7%
3% 5%Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very Much
29%
31%
19%
17%
3%
1%
Less than 10 000 EUR
From 10,000 to 50,000 EUR
From 50,000 to 100,000 EUR
From 100,000 to 500,000 EUR
From 500,000 to 1,000,000 EUR
More than 1,000,000
2%1%
11%
22%
64%
Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very much
73%
15%
6%
1%
3%
1% 1%
0-5 employees
6-10 employees
11-15 employees
16-20 employees
21-25 employees
89 employees
97 employees
54%
11%
6%
14%
2%
1%1%
6%
1% 1%
2%
1%
0-10 volunteers
11-20 volunteers
21-30 volunteers
31-40 volunteers
41-50 volunteers
51-60 volunteers
61-70 volunteers
100 volunteers
120 volunteers
257 volunteers
8%
28%
51%
12%
1%
Very difficult
Difficult
Somehow difficult
Easy
Very easy
19%
21%
20%
11% Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very much
5%
1%
3%
91%
Not at all
Little
Somewhat
Enough
70%
14%
8%
4%4% 0-5 employees
6-10 employees
11-15 employees
16-20 employees
over 20 employees
29%
participated in the survey have 0-5 employees full-time or/and part time (73% of surveyed CSOs have 0-5 full-time employees and 70% of surveyed CSOs have 0-5 part-time employees). The next interval with the highest number of surveyed CSOs is 6-10 employees. There are few organizations that have more than 25 employees full time or part time, as Youth Albanian Parcel Services (YAPS) with 89
employees full time and SOS Children’s’ Villages with 97 employees full time, International organization for Solidarity (SHIS) with 50 employees part-time and Counseling Center for People with Disabilities with 55 employees part-time. All these organizations work in the social services area and deliver paid services for their target-groups, and operate as social enterprises also.
As cited in the 2013 CSO Sustainability Index, “volunteerism is underdeveloped, and decision makers have not yet acted on the draft Law on Volunteerism prepared by a coalition of youth organizations three years ago”47. As a result, there
are no state programs developed on voluntarism. When asked if they have information on state programs on voluntarism, 76% of surveyed CSOs declare that they have no information, while 22% of surveyed CSOs declare that they
30
have such information, but they were referring to the students’ practices in the institutions and organization as part of their academic studies.
While the state does not prohibit spontaneous volunteering, it puts legal obligations to declare and register at the employment office, and to pay insurances for volunteers, otherwise there are harsh penalties. Therefore, it is considered important from CSOs the adoption of a Law on Voluntarism that would regulate the relationships between CSOs and the volunteers, as well as between CSOs and the state with regards to voluntarism. Lack of existing incentives to support voluntarism is also reflected in the findings of the survey, and as it can be observed in the graphic number 10 below most of the organisations (51%) have 0-10 volunteers. There are 11 organisations that
have more than 100 volunteers as: Center for Legal Civic Initiatives, Albanian Youth Council, Balkan Youth Link Albania, Roma Active Albania, YMCA Albania, CSO Forum in Pogradec, Artistic Agency of Spectacles in Korça, Ecologic Club of Elbasan, and Albanian Center for Population and Development (ACPD), while there are two organization with 1000 and more volunteers: Journalists Union and Society for Democratic Culture. These organizations are membership based ones, and conduct massive campaigns as the mobilisation of local observers by the coalition of local observers member of which is the Society for Democratic Culture. Thus, the volunteers are mostly engaged on temporary bases, according to the needs of the organization for the conduction of specific activities.
Graphic 10. Number of volunteers
1%
6%4%
4%
6%
6%
1%4%
1%7%55%
5%BERAT
DURRËS
ELBASAN
FIER
GJIROKASTËR
KORÇË
KUCOVE
POGRADEC
PUKË
SHKODER
TIRANË
VLORË
57%
18%
24%
1%
Association
Foundations
Centre
Social Enterprises
16%
38%
50%
65%
40%
56%
67%
35%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Business
Democracy
woman
Culture Education
Environment
Social Services
Youth
Health
81%
9%
7%
1% 2%
Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very Much
72%
13%
7%
3% 5%Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very Much
29%
31%
19%
17%
3%
1%
Less than 10 000 EUR
From 10,000 to 50,000 EUR
From 50,000 to 100,000 EUR
From 100,000 to 500,000 EUR
From 500,000 to 1,000,000 EUR
More than 1,000,000
2%1%
11%
22%
64%
Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very much
73%
15%
6%
1%
3%
1% 1%
0-5 employees
6-10 employees
11-15 employees
16-20 employees
21-25 employees
89 employees
97 employees
54%
11%
6%
14%
2%
1%1%
6%
1% 1%
2%
1%
0-10 volunteers
11-20 volunteers
21-30 volunteers
31-40 volunteers
41-50 volunteers
51-60 volunteers
61-70 volunteers
100 volunteers
120 volunteers
257 volunteers
8%
28%
51%
12%
1%
Very difficult
Difficult
Somehow difficult
Easy
Very easy
19%
21%
20%
11% Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very much
5%
1%
3%
91%
Not at all
Little
Somewhat
Enough
70%
14%
8%
4%4% 0-5 employees
6-10 employees
11-15 employees
16-20 employees
over 20 employees
29%
The assessment of Standard 1 and Standard 2, Sub area 2.3., reflects also the assessment for the following indicators of the EU CS Guidelines 2014-2020: 1.2.a. Number of employees in CSO (permanent and part-time), 1.2.b. Number of volunteers in CSOs per type of CSO / sector, and 1.2.c. Quality of legislative framework. There are no official statistical data on the number of employees (permanent and part time) and volunteers in CSOs. The labor legislative framework is not discriminative, nor simulative toward CSOs. There is not a legal framework to regulate voluntarism in CSOs, despite efforts and initiatives to prepare and submit a special draft Law on Voluntarisms by CSOs to the respective public authorities since in 2011.
31
Area 3: Government-CSO Relationship
Sub-area 3.1.: Framework and practices for cooperation
The State recognizes, through policies and strategies, the importance of the development of and cooperation with the sector.
Cooperation and partnership between CSOs and government is important to create an adequate legal framework, policies and strategies for the development of the CSOs. The findings from survey with CSOs in 2014 show that cooperation between government and CSOs is improved. Compared with the findings from the survey of the Monitoring Matrix Report 2013, in which only 14% of surveyed CSOs declared that cooperation between government and CSOs is improved, in 2014 there are 43% of surveyed CSOs declaring that the cooperation is improved.
One of the main documents that will serve as a strategic document for the cooperation, and strengthening of dialogue between the Government and civil society is the Road Map for Government Policy on Civil Society Development that has been prepared in 2014. The Road Map aims to lead the Government toward efficient decision-making for improvement of the environment for cooperation with civil society. The document is in compliance with the Guidelines for EU support to Civil Society and Enlargement Countries, 2014 – 2020, which aims to ensure a solid framework for measuring the progress in developing an enabling and stimulating participatory democracy in the countries moving towards EU accession 48. The document is prepared in consultation with CSOs, through a series of consultative meetings organized by TACSO Office in Albania.
During this year, following the engagement of the Albanian Government in the National Conference “Social Partners – Time for Action” in December 2013, has started the process for the development of strategic documents and establishment of the mechanisms of partnership between the State and CSOs. Important progress has been made during
this year for the materialization of two strategic issues addressed in the conference of December that would contribute to the institutionalization of partnership between the State and CSOs, as:
1. Adoption to the Albanian Parliament of the Charter for Civil Society
2. Establish of the National Council of Collaboration among the Government and Civil Society Organizations49
On December 24, 2014 the Albanian Parliament adopted the Resolution “For Recognition and Strengthening the Role of Civil Society in the Process of Democratic Development of the Country”, the first political document that recognizes and establishes concrete commitments in this regard. The preparation of the resolution was based on the Charter for Civil Society prepared and presented since in 2009 and was submitted to the parliament by the Working Group for an Enabling Environment for Civil Society. On 22 October 2014, the parliamentary sub commission on Human Rights organized a hearing session with representatives of CSOs, international organizations, MPs and Council of Ministers, to discuss the Charter of Civil Society. Through an open and continues dialogue, collaboration and joint work of the Working Group for an Enabling Environment for Civil Society with the Government, after the meeting with the Prime Minister on 9 May 2014, was prepared the draft law for the Establishment and Functioning of the National Council for Civil Society, an advisory independent body near to the Council of Ministers. The establishment of the Council would guarantee the institutional cooperation between the government and civil society in Albania, in support of improvement of democracy, consolidation of good governance, increased of transparency in policy making and decision making, as a result of inclusiveness of civil society in this process. The draft law for the establishment of the Council will be discussed through a wide consultative process with civil society, and line ministries, before sent to the parliament for discussion and approval in the beginning of 2015.
48) http://www.tacso.org/news/events/?id=1101449) http://www.partnersalbania.org/Statement_of_civil_society.pdf
32
Starting from 2013, there are established some mechanisms/structures at the central administration level, to deal with civil society issues and to facilitate the interaction of the institutions with civil society. To be mentioned are: Office for Coordination with Groups of
50) Law no. 146/2014 date 30.10.2014 On Public Notification and Consultation51) Ibid, Article 15
Interest in the Parliament, Department of Programming and Development of Foreign Aid at Prime Minister’s Office, Civil Society and Strategy Unit in the Ministry of European Integration; and Civil Society Advisory Board on Human Rights of the Ombudsman.
The assessment of Standard 1 and Standard 2, Sub area 2.3., reflects also the assessment for the following indicators of the EU CS Guidelines 2014-2020: 3.1.b Quality of structures and mechanisms in place for dialogue and cooperation between CSOs and public institutions in terms of: - CSO representation in general, - representation of smaller/weaker CSOs, - its visibility and availability, - government perception of quality of structures and mechanisms, - CSOs perception of structures and mechanisms. The structures and mechanisms in place for dialogue and cooperation between CSOs and public institutions are in the process of their establishment, as the National Council for Civil Society, and the adoption of the Resolution “For Recognition and Strengthening the Role of Civil Society in the Process of Democratic Development of the Country”. Establishment of such structures and mechanisms represents a progress in the relations between two sectors, and as evaluated by the surveyed SCOs has led to an improved and increased cooperation between the government and CSOs.
Sub-area 3.2.: Involvement in policy- and decision-making process
The evaluation of this sub-area is based on the following standards: Standard 1: There are standards enabling CSO involvement in decision-making, which allow for CSO input in a timely manner; Standard 2: All draft policies and laws are easily accessible to the public in a timely manner; Standard 3: CSO representatives are equal partners in discussions in cross-sector bodies and are selected through clearly defined criteria and processes.
In October 2014, the Law on Public Notification and Consultations50 was adopted by the Albanian Parliament, putting forward the requirements for consultation on draft laws, strategies and policies with the groups of interests. The law institutionalizes the public consultation in drafting and approval of the project laws, national and local strategies, as well as policies with high public interest, with the final aim of improvement
of quality of policies and judicial acts in general. In overall, the law is in line with international standards on public notification and consultations. The law predicts the creation of the electronic register for public notification and consultation that guarantees access to all groups of interest, ensuring thus equity on access to information and services to all. Based on the law, CSOs are given sufficient time to prepare their opinion and provide their recommendations on the draft laws and policies, in line with international standards51. Also, the law stipulates that a summary of collected opinions is made public and is part of the submission of the draft law for adoption. By the other hand, if the recommendation is not accepted, a summary of the reasons are made public. The law provides also options for redress if the provisions for consultations are not respected, based on the claims by the groups of interest.
The law addresses the main concerns raised by CSOs with regards to lack of binding obligation
33
52) http://www.osfa.al/njoftime/rritja-e-perfshirjes-qytetare-ne-vendimmarrje-dhe-politikeberje53) Law No. 119/2014 On the Right of Information
for public authorities to publish any draft laws and policies; lack of on-line information and publication of draft laws and policies; lack of clear and reasonable deadlines for submission of comments regarding draft laws; lack of written feedback on the recommendations provided; lack of invitations for public consultations; lack of transparency with the consultation processes; and lack of information on the reasons why the recommendations are not taken into consideration.
A weakness of the law is exception from its field of operation of normative acts that constitute the majority of the legal framework, with a direct impact in citizens and groups of interest rights.52 The Law is the result of a long term efforts of civil society started in 2011 by OSFA Foundation in Albania in fulfillment of engagements made by the Albanian government in the frame of the membership of the country in Open Government Partnership, as is the adoption of a new law on the right of information53 that guarantee the right of information of citizens in compliance with international standards. Another important development in this aspect is the approval of the Law No. 93/2014 For Inclusiveness and Accessibility of Persons with Disabilities, that in its Article 5 “CSOs having the right to be consulted” put obligations to the public authorities to consult individuals with disabilities and CSOs of and for people with disabilities or issues of disabilities.
The developments in the legal framework with regards to the participation in decision-and policy making, in 2014 are associated with a more open, collaborative, and transparent approach by the state institutions at the central level, ensuring an increased participation of civil society in these processes. The findings from the survey with CSOs show that there is an increase of 18% of surveyed CSOs declaring that the level of participation in decision-making is increased and a decrease of 17% of surveyed CSOs declaring that public access in draft laws and policies is difficult and very difficult, compared with the findings of the Monitoring Matrix Report 2013. There are several legal and other regulatory initiatives
mentioned by CSOs that have been developed in consultation with CSOs and interest groups, as: National Strategy for Employment and Skills prepared by the Ministry of Social Welfare and Youth; National plan on OGP; Administrative-Territorial Reform prepared by the Minister of State for Local Government; changes in the Penal Code by the Ministry of Interior Affairs; Roadmap on 5 Key Priorities by the Ministry of European Integration, Fiscal Package for 2015, etc.
The parliament has been very proactive in 2014, in the process of consultation with the public, interest groups and civil society on project laws. The major commitment of the Parliament toward improvements of its cooperation and in relation with civil society was the adoption of the “Resolution For Recognition and Strengthening the Role of Civil Society in the Process of Democratic Development of the Country”. The parliamentary committees have been active in organising hearing session with interest groups on project laws. In the webpage of the Parliament there is information on the programme and working agenda of the committees. An important development in the work of the parliament towards increased consultation with the public is the preparation of the Manual on Public Participation in Decision Making Process of the Parliament. CSOs have been invited to provide their feedback on the document on-line and in consultative meetings.
Another positive example of transparency and public consultation on draft laws comes from the Minister of Innovation and Public Administration, that publishes in its webpage draft laws and invites all interested parties to provide their feedback on the drafts.
Although these positive developments there are still needs for improvements to address the concerns of CSOs in 2014 aiming to improve and increase involvement in policy – and decision – making, such as: short notice on the consultation process and lack of feedback on the comments and recommendations made; lack or low level of reflection of civil society comments in the final documents, there are preferences among CSOs
34
that are invited in the consultation processes; lack of updated information on webpage of public institutions, etc.
Being represented and equal partners in discussions in cross-sector bodies established by public institutions, based on clear guidelines and transparent and predetermined criteria of selection, would be the highest level of participation of CSOs in decision making processes. From the legislative aspect, the situation in 2014 is the same and there are no chances compared with the findings of the MM Report 2013. Still, there is not a specific law
regulating this issue, but in different laws it is sanctioned the creation of advisory bodies. While there are no changes in the legislation, at the practice level it is noted an improved situation with regards to the easiness of the process of representation of CSOs in cross sector bodies as shown in the graphics 11 and 12 below (11% CSOs less than in 2013 find it difficult and very difficult the representation in cross sector bodies) and in the clearness and transparency of selection of CSOs representatives in these structures (25% CSOs less than in 2013 declare that the selection process is not at all and little transparent).
Graphic 11. Participation in cross-sector bodies
Graphic 12. Transparency in the selection process of CSOs in the cross-sector bodies
1%
6%4%
4%
6%
6%
1%4%
1%7%55%
5%BERAT
DURRËS
ELBASAN
FIER
GJIROKASTËR
KORÇË
KUCOVE
POGRADEC
PUKË
SHKODER
TIRANË
VLORË
57%
18%
24%
1%
Association
Foundations
Centre
Social Enterprises
16%
38%
50%
65%
40%
56%
67%
35%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Business
Democracy
woman
Culture Education
Environment
Social Services
Youth
Health
81%
9%
7%
1% 2%
Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very Much
72%
13%
7%
3% 5%Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very Much
29%
31%
19%
17%
3%
1%
Less than 10 000 EUR
From 10,000 to 50,000 EUR
From 50,000 to 100,000 EUR
From 100,000 to 500,000 EUR
From 500,000 to 1,000,000 EUR
More than 1,000,000
2%1%
11%
22%
64%
Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very much
73%
15%
6%
1%
3%
1% 1%
0-5 employees
6-10 employees
11-15 employees
16-20 employees
21-25 employees
89 employees
97 employees
54%
11%
6%
14%
2%
1%1%
6%
1% 1%
2%
1%
0-10 volunteers
11-20 volunteers
21-30 volunteers
31-40 volunteers
41-50 volunteers
51-60 volunteers
61-70 volunteers
100 volunteers
120 volunteers
257 volunteers
8%
28%
51%
12%
1%
Very difficult
Difficult
Somehow difficult
Easy
Very easy
19%
21%
20%
11% Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very much
5%
1%
3%
91%
Not at all
Little
Somewhat
Enough
70%
14%
8%
4%4% 0-5 employees
6-10 employees
11-15 employees
16-20 employees
over 20 employees
29%
1%
6%4%
4%
6%
6%
1%4%
1%7%55%
5%BERAT
DURRËS
ELBASAN
FIER
GJIROKASTËR
KORÇË
KUCOVE
POGRADEC
PUKË
SHKODER
TIRANË
VLORË
57%
18%
24%
1%
Association
Foundations
Centre
Social Enterprises
16%
38%
50%
65%
40%
56%
67%
35%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Business
Democracy
woman
Culture Education
Environment
Social Services
Youth
Health
81%
9%
7%
1% 2%
Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very Much
72%
13%
7%
3% 5%Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very Much
29%
31%
19%
17%
3%
1%
Less than 10 000 EUR
From 10,000 to 50,000 EUR
From 50,000 to 100,000 EUR
From 100,000 to 500,000 EUR
From 500,000 to 1,000,000 EUR
More than 1,000,000
2%1%
11%
22%
64%
Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very much
73%
15%
6%
1%
3%
1% 1%
0-5 employees
6-10 employees
11-15 employees
16-20 employees
21-25 employees
89 employees
97 employees
54%
11%
6%
14%
2%
1%1%
6%
1% 1%
2%
1%
0-10 volunteers
11-20 volunteers
21-30 volunteers
31-40 volunteers
41-50 volunteers
51-60 volunteers
61-70 volunteers
100 volunteers
120 volunteers
257 volunteers
8%
28%
51%
12%
1%
Very difficult
Difficult
Somehow difficult
Easy
Very easy
19%
21%
20%
11% Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very much
5%
1%
3%
91%
Not at all
Little
Somewhat
Enough
70%
14%
8%
4%4% 0-5 employees
6-10 employees
11-15 employees
16-20 employees
over 20 employees
29%
35
While it is important to participate in cross sector bodies, more important is to be able to have the time and opportunity to speak and express your opinion and to debate on the issue. The practice shows that this element of participation is respected at a considerable level, as 67% of CSOs declare that CSOs express and protect their opinion in these bodies. In order to make the partnership an obligation for all public institution, CSOs suggest for the adoption of a specific law
that would oblige the public institutions to invite CSO representatives in decision-making and/or advisory bodies. Among other criteria provided by CSOs, are: mutual trust and respect, increased transparency and correctness in the selection process; selection of CSOs representatives by CSOs themselves; increased capacitates of CSOs to be equal partners in these bodies; clear rules of participation; increased cooperation; clear roles and responsibilities based on written agreements, etc.
The assessment of Standard 2 and Standard 3 Sub area 2.3., reflects also the assessment for the following indicators of the EU CS Guidelines 2014-2020: 3.1.a. Percentage of laws/bylaws, strategies and policy reforms effectively consulted with CSOs, and 3.1.b. Quality of structures and mechanisms in place for dialogue and cooperation between CSOs and public institutions.Adoption of the Law on Public Notification and Consultations, by the Albanian Parliament in October 2014, is an important step toward increased participation of CSOs in decision making processes. Along with the work for the preparation and adoption of the law, an increased participation of CSOs in consultation of laws/bylaws, strategies and policy reforms is noticed in 2014, compared with 2013. Still, there are only 26% of surveyed CSOs reporting that the level of involvement of CSOs in decision making is high, leading to the need for an increased inclusion of CSOs in decision making by public institutions.
Sub-area 3.3.: Collaboration in social services provisionThe evaluation of this sub-area is based on the following standards: Standard 1: CSOs are engaged in different services and compete for state contracts on an equal basis to other providers; Standard 2: The state has committed to funding services and the funding is predictable and available over a longer-term period; Standard 3: The state has clearly defined procedures for contracting services which allow for transparent selection of service providers, including CSOs; Standard 4: There is a clear system of accountability, monitoring and evaluation of service provision.
While the Law on NPOs, allows CSOs to exercise activities in the good and benefit of the public, and the Law on Social Assistance and Services allows CSOs to deliver privately funded social services as well as public services with funding
by state budget, the legal framework regulating public procurement procedures creates many obstacles that make it almost impossible for CSOs to compete for state contracts with the same requirements as other service providers54. Thus, incomes from public procurements are not an option for CSOs. Compared with other sources of funding, public procurement is the one from which CSOs ensure less funds. This indicator is the only one that has been evaluated more negatively by CSOs, compared with the MM Report 2013. From 75% of surveyed CSOs that have declared that they can not seek and secure funds from public procurement at all in 2013, there are 91% of CSOs that have chosen this alternative in 2014, as reflected in the graphic no.13 below. Even though CSOs are the main private providers of services in the social assistance, health care and education, the examples of CSOs being awarded contracts for such services are almost missing.
54) Refer to the Monitoring Matrix on Enabling Environment for Civil Society Development, Country Report for Albania, 2013 for more specifications on the existing legal framework and obstacles.
36
Considering the negative impact that this situation presents for the development of CSOs, Partners Albania developed in 2014 an advocacy strategy to address the issue. The implementation of the strategy started with the development of a Policy Paper on Social Procurement55, addressing contracting of social services, as one of the key areas in which CSOs operate and are the main private providers with the required experience and expertise. The paper presents the existing legal framework in social provision, obstacles for development of the social contracting process and social service provision in general such as: Lack of traditions in providing community-based social services, lack of state financing for social services, lack of appropriate procedures for contracting services, lack of capacity to contract social services, delays and other problems related to payments, CSOs are seen as a source and not a recipient of funding, as well as recommendations to ensure that social contracting is not only
possible but is also a leading practice with regard to the provision and financing of social services in Albania. Preparation and adoption of a specific law on social procurement, separate from the law on public procurement would be required to address the issue of procurement and delivery of social services by CSOs.
As a final conclusion, the paper evaluates that the current political situation creates a rare opportunity for the development of Social Procurement. In addition to the reforms that are taking place as the Social Services Reform by the Ministry of Social Welfare and Youth, and the Administrate-Territorial Reform by the Minster of State for Local Government, the fact that there are almost no community-based social services gives the opportunity that when these start developing, CSOs will be the natural partner of the state in social service delivery.
Graphic 13. Incomes from public procurement
1%
6%4%
4%
6%
6%
1%4%
1%7%55%
5%BERAT
DURRËS
ELBASAN
FIER
GJIROKASTËR
KORÇË
KUCOVE
POGRADEC
PUKË
SHKODER
TIRANË
VLORË
57%
18%
24%
1%
Association
Foundations
Centre
Social Enterprises
16%
38%
50%
65%
40%
56%
67%
35%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Business
Democracy
woman
Culture Education
Environment
Social Services
Youth
Health
81%
9%
7%
1% 2%
Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very Much
72%
13%
7%
3% 5%Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very Much
29%
31%
19%
17%
3%
1%
Less than 10 000 EUR
From 10,000 to 50,000 EUR
From 50,000 to 100,000 EUR
From 100,000 to 500,000 EUR
From 500,000 to 1,000,000 EUR
More than 1,000,000
2%1%
11%
22%
64%
Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very much
73%
15%
6%
1%
3%
1% 1%
0-5 employees
6-10 employees
11-15 employees
16-20 employees
21-25 employees
89 employees
97 employees
54%
11%
6%
14%
2%
1%1%
6%
1% 1%
2%
1%
0-10 volunteers
11-20 volunteers
21-30 volunteers
31-40 volunteers
41-50 volunteers
51-60 volunteers
61-70 volunteers
100 volunteers
120 volunteers
257 volunteers
8%
28%
51%
12%
1%
Very difficult
Difficult
Somehow difficult
Easy
Very easy
19%
21%
20%
11% Not at all
Little
Somehow
Sufficient
Very much
5%
1%
3%
91%
Not at all
Little
Somewhat
Enough
70%
14%
8%
4%4% 0-5 employees
6-10 employees
11-15 employees
16-20 employees
over 20 employees
29%
55) http://www.partnersalbania.org/?fq=brenda&m=news&gj=gj2&lid=131
37V.
Find
ings
an
d Rec
omme
ndat
ions (
Tabu
lar)56
56
In th
is s
ectio
n, th
e ta
bles
reg
ardi
ng 12
cor
e st
anda
rds
and
5 ad
ditio
nal s
tand
ards
mon
itore
d in
Alb
ania
are
mar
ked
in p
ink
colo
r. Th
e fin
ding
s an
d re
com
men
datio
ns fo
r th
e ot
her
stan
dard
s th
at h
ave
not b
een
mon
itore
d in
20
14 a
re b
ased
on
the
Mon
itorin
g M
atrix
Rep
ort 2
013
.
ARE
A 1:
BA
SIC
LEGA
L GU
ARA
NTE
ES O
F FR
EED
OM
S
Sub-
area
1.1.:
Fre
edom
of
asso
ciat
ion
Prin
cipl
e: F
reed
om o
f as
soci
atio
n is
gua
rant
eed
and
exer
cise
d fr
eely
by
ever
ybod
y
STA
NDA
RD 1
IND
ICAT
ORS
FIN
DIN
GSRE
COM
MEN
DATI
ON
S FO
R TH
E ST
AN
DARD
1. A
ll in
divi
dual
s an
d le
gal
entit
ies
can
free
ly e
stab
lish
and
part
icip
ate
in in
form
al a
nd/
or r
egis
tere
d or
gani
zatio
ns
offl
ine
and
onlin
e
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Ther
e is
a l
egal
fra
mew
ork
acco
rdin
g to
whi
ch a
ny p
erso
n ca
n es
tabl
ish
asso
ciat
ions
, fou
ndat
ions
and
oth
er ty
pes
of n
on-p
rofit
, non
-go
vern
men
tal e
ntiti
es (e
.g.,
non-
profi
t com
pany
) for
any
pur
pose
.2)
Th
e le
gal
fram
ewor
k al
low
s bo
th i
ndiv
idua
l an
d le
gal
pers
ons
to
exer
cise
th
is
right
w
ithou
t di
scrim
inat
ion
(age
, na
tiona
lity,
le
gal
capa
city
, gen
der
etc)
.3)
Re
gist
ratio
n is
not
man
dato
ry, a
nd in
cas
es w
hen
orga
niza
tions
dec
ide
to r
egis
ter,
the
regi
stra
tion
rule
s ar
e cl
earl
y pr
escr
ibed
and
allo
w f
or
easy
, tim
ely
and
inex
pens
ive
regi
stra
tion
and
appe
al p
roce
ss.
4)
The
law
allo
ws
for
netw
orki
ng a
mon
g or
gani
zatio
ns in
the
cou
ntrie
s an
d ab
road
with
out p
rior
notifi
catio
n.
Legi
slat
ion:
1. A
ny p
erso
n ca
n ex
erci
se h
is r
ight
to
esta
blis
h as
soci
atio
ns,
foun
datio
ns a
nd c
ente
rs (t
hree
typ
es o
f CS
Os
reco
gniz
ed b
y La
w o
n N
on P
rofit
Org
aniz
atio
ns;
2.
The
free
dom
of
asso
ciat
ion
is a
con
stitu
tiona
l rig
ht f
or a
ny
indi
vidu
al a
nd le
gal
entit
y w
ithou
t an
y ag
e, n
atio
nalit
y, le
gal
capa
city
, gen
der,
and
ethn
ics
base
d di
scrim
inat
ion.
3.
Re
gist
ratio
n of
CSO
is n
ot m
anda
tory
, and
in c
ases
whe
n CS
O
deci
des
to r
egis
ter,
rule
s an
d pr
oced
ures
for
reg
istr
atio
n ar
e cl
earl
y es
tabl
ishe
d an
d fo
rese
en b
y th
e La
w.
The
proc
ess
of r
egis
trat
ion
of C
SOs
is c
entr
aliz
ed a
nd t
he r
egis
trat
ion
proc
edur
es is
don
e on
ly in
Tira
na C
ourt
of
Firs
t Ins
tanc
e;4.
Th
e le
gal
fram
ewor
k is
too
per
mis
sive
for
net
wor
king
bot
h w
ithin
and
out
side
the
coun
try
with
out p
rior
notic
e.
Legi
slat
ion:
1. De
cent
raliz
atio
n of
CS
Os’
reg
istr
atio
n pr
oces
s.
Prac
tice:
1)
Ever
y in
divi
dual
or
lega
l en
tity
in p
ract
ice
can
form
ass
ocia
tions
, fo
unda
tions
or
ot
her
non-
profi
t,
non-
gove
rnm
enta
l or
gani
zatio
ns
offl
ine
or o
nlin
e.2)
In
divi
dual
s an
d le
gal
entit
ies
are
not
sanc
tione
d fo
r no
t-re
gist
erin
g th
eir
orga
niza
tions
.3)
Re
gist
ratio
n is
trul
y ac
cess
ible
with
in th
e le
gally
pre
scrib
ed d
eadl
ines
; au
thor
ities
dec
ide
on c
ases
in n
on-s
ubje
ctiv
e an
d ap
oliti
cal m
anne
r.4)
In
divi
dual
s an
d CS
Os
can
form
and
par
ticip
ate
in n
etw
orks
and
co
aliti
ons,
with
in a
nd o
utsi
de th
eir
hom
e co
untr
ies.
Prac
tice:
1. Th
ere
are
no o
ffici
al d
ata
on t
he n
umbe
r of
reg
iste
red
CSO
s an
d or
gani
zatio
ns c
an n
ot r
egis
ter
onlin
e2.
Th
ere
are
no s
anct
ions
app
lied
for
non-
regi
ster
ed C
SOs.
Re
gist
ratio
n in
Tira
na is
con
side
red
as a
bar
rier
for
the
CSO
s ba
sed
outs
ide
Tira
na b
ecau
se o
f ad
ditio
nal
cost
s an
d tim
e ne
eded
3.
The
regi
stra
tion
proc
ess
is e
asy,
allo
win
g fo
r a
rela
tivel
y st
raig
htfo
rwar
d re
gist
ratio
n of
CSO
s4.
Pa
rtic
ipat
ion
of
indi
vidu
als
in
form
al
and
non-
form
al
orga
niza
tions
is e
asy,
and
in p
ract
ice
indi
vidu
als
and
CSO
s ca
n pa
rtic
ipat
e in
net
wor
ks a
nd c
oalit
ions
with
in a
nd o
utsi
de t
heir
hom
e co
untr
ies
Prac
tice:
1. O
ffici
al d
ata
on th
e re
gist
ered
CSO
s nu
mbe
r is
nee
ded.
38A
REA
1: B
ASI
C LE
GAL
GUA
RAN
TEES
OF
FREE
DO
MS
Sub-
area
1.1.:
Fre
edom
of
asso
ciat
ion
Prin
cipl
e: F
reed
om o
f as
soci
atio
n is
gua
rant
eed
and
exer
cise
d fr
eely
by
ever
ybod
y
STA
NDA
RD 2
IND
ICAT
ORS
FIN
DIN
GSRE
COM
MEN
DATI
ON
S FO
R TH
E ST
AN
DARD
2. C
SOs
oper
ate
free
ly w
ithou
t un
war
rant
ed s
tate
in
terf
eren
ce in
thei
r in
tern
al g
over
nanc
e an
d ac
tiviti
es
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
The
lega
l fr
amew
ork
prov
ides
gua
rant
ees
agai
nst
stat
e in
terf
eren
ce in
inte
rnal
mat
ters
of
asso
ciat
ions
, fo
unda
tions
and
oth
er ty
pes
of n
on-p
rofit
ent
ities
. 2)
Th
e st
ate
prov
ides
pro
tect
ion
from
inte
rfer
ence
by
third
par
ties.
3)
Fina
ncia
l re
port
ing
(incl
udin
g m
oney
la
unde
ring
regu
latio
ns)
and
acco
untin
g ru
les
take
into
acc
ount
th
e sp
ecifi
c na
ture
of
the
CSO
s an
d ar
e pr
opor
tiona
te
to t
he s
ize
of t
he o
rgan
izat
ion
and
its t
ype/
scop
e of
ac
tiviti
es.
4)
Sanc
tions
for
bre
achi
ng l
egal
req
uire
men
ts s
houl
d be
bas
ed o
n ap
plic
able
leg
isla
tion
and
follo
w t
he
prin
cipl
e of
pro
port
iona
lity.
5)
Th
e re
stric
tions
and
the
rul
es f
or d
isso
lutio
n an
d te
rmin
atio
n m
eet
the
stan
dard
s of
inte
rnat
iona
l la
w
and
are
base
d on
obj
ectiv
e cr
iteria
whi
ch r
estr
ict
arbi
trar
y de
cisi
on m
akin
g.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
The
lega
l fra
mew
ork
guar
ante
es t
he r
ight
of
CSO
s to
reg
ulat
e th
eir
inte
rnal
st
ruct
ure
and
oper
atin
g pr
oced
ures
w
ithou
t un
war
rant
ed
stat
e in
terf
eren
ce
in
thei
r go
vern
ance
an
d ac
tiviti
es;
2)
Fina
ncia
l rep
ortin
g an
d ac
coun
ting
rule
s do
not
take
into
acc
ount
th
e sp
ecifi
c na
ture
of
the
CSO
s an
d ar
e no
t pro
port
iona
te to
the
size
of
orga
niza
tion
and
its ty
pe/s
cope
of
activ
ities
;3)
D
utie
s fo
r th
e de
cisi
on–m
akin
g bo
dy a
nd e
xecu
tive
body
with
re
gard
s to
mon
ey l
aund
ry a
nd fi
nanc
ing
of t
erro
rism
, w
hich
ar
e ev
asiv
e an
d pu
t the
res
pons
ibili
ty o
n th
ese
bodi
es to
ens
ure
that
par
tner
org
aniz
atio
ns a
nd th
ose
prov
idin
g fu
ndin
g, s
ervi
ces
and
mat
eria
l sup
port
are
not
use
d or
man
ipul
ated
for
terr
oris
m
reas
ons
and
mon
ey la
undr
y;
4)
The
rule
s fo
r di
ssol
utio
n an
d te
rmin
atio
n ar
e cl
earl
y pr
escr
ibed
in
the
law
for
the
reg
istr
atio
n of
non
-for
-pro
fit o
rgan
izat
ions
, an
d re
stric
t arb
itrar
y de
cisi
on m
akin
g.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Ado
ptio
n of
sep
arat
e fin
anci
al r
epor
ting
and
acco
untin
g ru
les
and
proc
edur
es, a
ppro
pria
te
for
CSO
s ta
king
into
co
nsid
erat
ion
the
spec
ific
natu
re o
f CS
Os
and
the
size
and
type
/sco
pe o
f ac
tiviti
es;
2)
Clar
ifica
tion
of d
utie
s fo
r th
e de
cisi
on–m
akin
g bo
dy
and
exec
utiv
e bo
dy w
ith
rega
rds
to m
oney
laun
dry
and
finan
cing
of
terr
oris
m
in th
e le
gal a
nd r
egul
ator
y fr
amew
ork
of C
SOs.
Prac
tice:
1)
Ther
e ar
e no
cas
es o
f st
ate
inte
rfer
ence
in in
tern
al
mat
ters
of
asso
ciat
ions
, fou
ndat
ions
and
oth
er t
ypes
of
non
-pro
fit e
ntiti
es.
2)
Ther
e ar
e no
pra
ctic
es o
f in
vasi
ve o
vers
ight
whi
ch
impo
se b
urde
nsom
e re
port
ing
requ
irem
ents
.3)
Sa
nctio
ns a
re a
pplie
d in
rar
e/ex
trem
e ca
ses;
they
are
pr
opor
tiona
l and
are
sub
ject
to a
judi
cial
rev
iew
.
Prac
tice:
1)
Ther
e is
an
incr
ease
d nu
mbe
r of
sur
veye
d CS
Os
(73%
of
CSO
s)
decl
arin
g th
at t
here
is n
o pr
actic
e of
sta
te in
terf
eren
ce in
the
ir in
tern
al g
over
nanc
e;2)
Th
ere
are
no p
ract
ices
of
inva
sive
ove
rsig
ht
b
y th
e st
ate,
evi
denc
ed b
y su
rvey
ed C
SOs
(81%
of
CSO
s);
3)
Lack
of
capa
citie
s of
tax
insp
ecto
rs d
ealin
g w
ith C
SOs.
Prac
tice:
1)
Trai
ning
pro
gram
s fo
r ta
x in
spec
tors
dea
ling
with
CS
Os.
39
ARE
A 1:
BA
SIC
LEGA
L GU
ARA
NTE
ES O
F FR
EED
OM
S
Sub-
area
1.1.:
Fre
edom
of
asso
ciat
ion
Prin
cipl
e: F
reed
om o
f as
soci
atio
n is
gua
rant
eed
and
exer
cise
d fr
eely
by
ever
ybod
y
STA
NDA
RD 3
IND
ICAT
ORS
FIN
DIN
GSRE
COM
MEN
DATI
ON
S FO
R TH
E ST
AN
DARD
3. C
SOs
can
free
ly
seek
and
sec
ure
finan
cial
res
ourc
es
from
var
ious
do
mes
tic a
nd fo
reig
n so
urce
s to
sup
port
th
eir
activ
ities
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Legi
slat
ion
allo
ws
CSO
s to
en
gage
in
ec
onom
ic
activ
ities
.2)
CS
Os
are
allo
wed
to r
ecei
ve fo
reig
n fu
ndin
g.3)
CS
O a
re a
llow
ed t
o re
ceiv
e fu
ndin
g fr
om in
divi
dual
s,
corp
orat
ions
and
oth
er s
ourc
es.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
The
Law
on
Non
– P
rofit
Org
aniz
atio
n al
low
s CS
Os
too
in
econ
omic
act
iviti
es.
With
the
las
t am
endm
ent
of t
he l
ow o
n N
POs
ther
e is
a c
larifi
catio
n of
“ec
onom
ic a
ctiv
ity”
of t
o be
in
volv
ed;
2)
The
lega
l fra
mew
ork
allo
ws
CSO
s to
rec
eive
fun
ds f
rom
due
s,
whe
n th
ere
are
such
, gr
ants
and
don
atio
ns o
ffer
ed b
y pr
ivat
e or
pub
lic s
ubje
cts,
loc
al o
r fo
reig
n, a
s w
ell
as i
ncom
e fr
om
econ
omic
act
ivity
and
the
ass
ets
owne
d by
the
non
-pro
fit
orga
niza
tion.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Stat
e au
thor
ities
sho
uld
prov
ide
guid
ance
to C
SOs
to e
ngag
e in
eco
nom
ic
activ
ities
to fa
cilit
ate
the
proc
ess.
Prac
tice:
1)
Le
gisl
atio
n on
CSO
s en
gagi
ng in
eco
nom
ic a
ctiv
ities
is
impl
emen
ted
and
is n
ot b
urde
nsom
e fo
r CS
Os.
2)
Ther
e ar
e no
re
stric
tions
(e
.g.
adm
inis
trat
ive
or
finan
cial
bur
den,
pre
appr
oval
s, o
r ch
anne
lling
suc
h fu
nds
via
spec
ific
bodi
es)
on C
SOs
to r
ecei
ve f
orei
gn
fund
ing.
3)
Re
ceip
t of
fu
ndin
g fr
om
indi
vidu
als,
co
rpor
atio
ns
and
othe
r so
urce
s is
eas
y, e
ffec
tive
and
with
out
any
unne
cess
ary
cost
or
adm
inis
trat
ive
burd
en.
Prac
tice:
1)
Re
port
ing
of e
cono
mic
and
non
-eco
nom
ic a
ctiv
ities
with
the
sa
me
form
at is
not
eff
ectiv
e an
d bu
rden
som
e fo
r CS
Os;
2)
The
legi
slat
ion
does
not
pre
sent
any
lega
l bar
rier
with
rega
rd to
ac
cess
to fu
ndin
g, h
avin
g th
em a
loca
l or
fore
ign
orig
in;
3)
Ther
e ar
e no
tax
inc
entiv
es f
or i
ndiv
idua
l an
d co
rpor
atio
n do
natio
ns
that
w
ould
in
crea
se
rece
ipt
of
fund
ing
from
in
divi
dual
s, c
orpo
ratio
ns a
nd o
ther
priv
ate
sour
ces.
Prac
tice:
1)
A
pplic
atio
n of
sep
arat
e fo
rmat
for
repo
rtin
g of
ec
onom
ic a
nd n
on e
cono
mic
ac
tivity
of
CSO
s by
tax
auth
oriti
es;
2)
Prov
isio
n of
tax
ince
ntiv
es
for
indi
vidu
als
and
corp
orat
ions
pro
vidi
ng
fund
s fr
om C
SOs.
ARE
A 1:
BA
SIC
LEGA
L GU
ARA
NTE
ES O
F FR
EED
OM
S
Sub-
area
1.2.
: Rel
ated
fre
edom
s
Prin
cipl
e: F
reed
oms
of a
ssem
bly
and
expr
essi
on a
re g
uara
ntee
d to
eve
rybo
dy
STA
NDA
RD 1
IND
ICAT
ORS
FIN
DIN
GSRE
COM
MEN
DATI
ON
S FO
R TH
E ST
AN
DARD
1. CS
O
repr
esen
tativ
es,
indi
vidu
ally
or
thro
ugh
thei
r or
gani
zatio
n, e
njoy
fr
eedo
m o
f pe
acef
ul
asse
mbl
y
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
The
lega
l fr
amew
ork
is
base
d on
in
tern
atio
nal
stan
dard
s an
d pr
ovid
es t
he r
ight
for
fre
edom
of
asse
mbl
y fo
r al
l with
out a
ny d
iscr
imin
atio
n.2)
Th
e la
ws
reco
gniz
e an
d do
not
res
tric
t sp
onta
neou
s,
sim
ulta
neou
s an
d co
unte
r-as
sem
blie
s.3)
Th
e ex
erci
se o
f th
e rig
ht i
s no
t su
bjec
t to
prio
r au
thor
izat
ion
by t
he a
utho
ritie
s, b
ut a
t th
e m
ost
to
a pr
ior
notifi
catio
n pr
oced
ure,
w
hich
is
no
t bu
rden
som
e.
4)
Any
re
stric
tion
of
the
right
ba
sed
on
law
an
d pr
escr
ibed
by
regu
lato
ry a
utho
rity
can
be a
ppea
led
by o
rgan
izer
s.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
The
lega
l fra
mew
ork
guar
ante
es t
he r
ight
to
enjo
y fr
eedo
m o
f pe
acef
ul a
ssem
bly
sanc
tione
d in
the
Alb
ania
n Co
nstit
utio
n an
d sp
ecifi
ed in
the
law
on
Ass
embl
e;2)
Th
e la
w re
cogn
ize
and
do n
ot re
stric
t spo
ntan
eous
, sim
ulta
neou
s an
d co
unte
r-as
sem
blie
s;3)
Th
e la
w r
egul
ates
the
pro
cedu
res
of p
rior
notifi
catio
ns in
cas
e th
e as
sem
bly
is o
rgan
ized
in p
ublic
spa
ces
or p
ublic
pas
sage
s.
Whe
n as
sem
bles
are
pla
nned
on
open
pub
lic s
pace
s th
ey m
ay
be o
rgan
ized
eve
n w
ithou
t prio
r no
tifica
tion
of th
e po
lice;
4)
The
Law
fo
rese
es
the
right
of
ad
min
istr
ativ
e ap
peal
by
or
gani
zers
;
Legi
slat
ion:
40A
REA
1: B
ASI
C LE
GAL
GUA
RAN
TEES
OF
FREE
DO
MS
Sub-
area
1.2.
: Rel
ated
fre
edom
s
Prin
cipl
e: F
reed
oms
of a
ssem
bly
and
expr
essi
on a
re g
uara
ntee
d to
eve
rybo
dy
STA
NDA
RD 1
IND
ICAT
ORS
FIN
DIN
GSRE
COM
MEN
DATI
ON
S FO
R TH
E ST
AN
DARD
Prac
tice:
1)
Th
ere
are
no c
ases
of e
ncro
achm
ent o
f the
free
dom
of a
ssem
bly,
an
d an
y gr
oup
of p
eopl
e ca
n as
sem
ble
at d
esire
d pl
ace
and
time,
in
line
with
the
lega
l pro
visi
ons.
2)
Re
stric
tions
are
just
ified
with
exp
lana
tion
of th
e re
ason
for
each
re
stric
tion,
whi
ch is
pro
mpt
ly c
omm
unic
ated
in w
ritin
g to
the
or
gani
zer
to g
uara
ntee
the
poss
ibili
ty o
f ap
peal
. 3)
Si
mul
tane
ous,
spo
ntan
eous
and
cou
nter
-ass
embl
ies
can
take
pl
ace,
and
the
sta
te f
acili
tate
s an
d pr
otec
ts g
roup
s to
exe
rcis
e th
eir
right
aga
inst
peo
ple
who
aim
to
prev
ent
or d
isru
pt t
he
asse
mbl
y.4)
Th
ere
are
case
s of
fre
edom
of
asse
mbl
y pr
actic
ed b
y CS
Os
(indi
vidu
ally
or
th
roug
h th
eir
orga
niza
tions
) w
ithou
t pr
ior
auth
oriz
atio
n; w
hen
notifi
catio
n is
req
uire
d it
is s
ubm
itted
in a
sh
ort p
erio
d of
tim
e an
d do
es n
ot li
mit
the
poss
ibili
ty to
org
aniz
e th
e as
sem
bly.
5)
N
o ex
cess
ive
use
of f
orce
is
exer
cise
d by
law
enf
orce
men
t bo
dies
, in
clud
ing
pre-
empt
ive
dete
ntio
ns
of
orga
nize
rs
and
part
icip
ants
. 6)
M
edia
sho
uld
have
as
muc
h ac
cess
to th
e as
sem
bly
as p
ossi
ble.
Prac
tice:
1)
Th
e pe
rcep
tion
and
expe
rienc
es o
f CS
Os
with
reg
ards
of
exer
cisi
ng th
eir
right
of
asse
mbl
y is
impr
oved
;2)
88
% o
f CS
Os
decl
are
that
the
fre
edom
of
asse
mbl
y is
re
spec
ted;
3)
32%
of C
SOs
decl
are
that
ther
e ar
e ca
ses
of s
pont
aneo
us a
nd
sim
ulta
neou
s as
sem
bly
with
out p
rior
writ
ten
auth
oriz
atio
n;4)
91
% o
f CS
Os
decl
are
that
the
re is
no
exce
ssiv
e us
e of
for
ce
exer
cise
d by
law
enf
orce
men
t bod
ies
durin
g as
sem
blie
s.
Prac
tice:
1)
Requ
ests
to o
btai
n a
perm
issi
on fo
r sp
onta
neou
s an
d si
mul
tane
ous
asse
mbl
y sh
ould
be
lim
ited
and
shou
ld b
e re
duce
d to
not
ifica
tion
inst
ead
of w
ritte
n au
thor
izat
ion
by
chie
f of
pol
ice
offic
e.
ARE
A 1:
BA
SIC
LEGA
L GU
ARA
NTE
ES O
F FR
EED
OM
S
Sub-
area
1.2.
: Rel
ated
fre
edom
s
Prin
cipl
e: F
reed
oms
of a
ssem
bly
and
expr
essi
on a
re g
uara
ntee
d to
eve
rybo
dy
STA
NDA
RD 2
IND
ICAT
ORS
FIN
DIN
GSRE
COM
MEN
DATI
ON
S FO
R TH
E ST
AN
DARD
2. C
SO
repr
esen
tativ
es,
indi
vidu
ally
or
thro
ugh
thei
r or
gani
zatio
ns
enjo
y fr
eedo
m o
f ex
pres
sion
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
The
lega
l fra
mew
ork
prov
ides
free
dom
of
expr
essi
on fo
r al
l. 2)
Re
stric
tions
, su
ch a
s lim
itatio
n of
hat
e sp
eech
, im
pose
d by
le
gisl
atio
n ar
e cl
earl
y pr
escr
ibed
and
in l
ine
with
inte
rnat
iona
l la
w a
nd s
tand
ards
. 3)
Li
bel i
s a
mis
dem
eano
ur r
athe
r th
an p
art o
f th
e pe
nal c
ode.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Alb
ania
off
ers
cons
titut
iona
l and
lega
l gua
rant
ees
of th
e rig
ht
of c
itize
ns to
exp
ress
free
ly.
2)
Any
lim
itatio
ns, s
uch
as r
estr
ictio
ns o
n ha
te s
peec
h, im
pose
d by
leg
isla
tion
are
desc
ribed
cle
arly
and
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith
inte
rnat
iona
l law
s in
the
Pena
l Cod
e of
the
Repu
blic
of
Alb
ania
3)
Libe
l is
regu
late
d in
the
Pena
l Cod
e, d
espi
te e
ffor
ts in
20
12 to
re
mov
e th
em a
nd in
clud
e in
the
civi
l cod
e
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Libe
l and
de
fam
atio
n sh
ould
be
intr
oduc
ed
in th
e Ci
vil C
ode
rath
er th
an b
eing
pa
rt o
f th
e Pe
nal
Code
41
Prac
tice:
1)
CSO
re
pres
enta
tives
, es
peci
ally
th
ose
from
hu
man
rig
hts
and
wat
ch d
og o
rgan
izat
ions
enj
oy t
he r
ight
to
free
dom
of
expr
essi
on o
n m
atte
rs th
ey s
uppo
rt a
nd th
ey a
re c
ritic
al o
f.2)
Th
ere
are
no c
ases
of
encr
oach
men
t of
the
rig
ht t
o fr
eedo
m o
f ex
pres
sion
for
all.
3)
Ther
e ar
e no
ca
ses
whe
re
indi
vidu
als,
in
clud
ing
CSO
re
pres
enta
tives
wou
ld b
e pe
rsec
uted
for
crit
ical
spe
ech,
in
publ
ic o
r pr
ivat
e.4)
Th
ere
is n
o sa
nctio
n fo
r cr
itica
l sp
eech
, in
pub
lic o
r pr
ivat
e,
unde
r th
e pe
nal c
ode.
Prac
tice:
1)
In p
ract
ice
CSO
s ex
erci
se th
eir
free
dom
of e
xpre
ssio
n w
ithou
t an
y in
terf
eren
ce,
as t
hey
are
allo
wed
to
orga
nize
sem
inar
s,
conf
eren
ces
and
othe
r pu
blic
eve
nts
to d
iscu
ss d
iffer
ent
issu
es,
to p
artic
ipat
e an
d ex
pres
s th
eir
view
s an
d op
inio
n in
writ
ten,
ele
ctro
nic
and
soci
al m
edia
, ev
en in
the
cas
es o
f cr
itics
to th
e go
vern
men
t
Prac
tice:
ARE
A 1:
BA
SIC
LEGA
L GU
ARA
NTE
ES O
F FR
EED
OM
S
Sub-
area
1.2.
: Rel
ated
fre
edom
s
Prin
cipl
e: F
reed
oms
of a
ssem
bly
and
expr
essi
on a
re g
uara
ntee
d to
eve
rybo
dy
STA
NDA
RD 3
IND
ICAT
ORS
FIN
DIN
GSRE
COM
MEN
DATI
ON
S FO
R TH
E ST
AN
DARD
3. C
ivil
soci
ety
repr
esen
tativ
es,
indi
vidu
ally
and
th
roug
h th
eir
orga
niza
tions
, hav
e th
e rig
hts
to s
afel
y re
ceiv
e an
d im
part
in
form
atio
n th
roug
h an
y m
edia
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
The
lega
l fr
amew
ork
prov
ides
the
pos
sibi
lity
to c
omm
unic
ate
via
and
acce
ss a
ny s
ourc
e of
info
rmat
ion,
incl
udin
g th
e In
tern
et
and
ICT;
if
ther
e ar
e le
gal
rest
rictio
ns,
thes
e ar
e ex
cept
iona
l, lim
ited
and
base
d on
inte
rnat
iona
l hum
an r
ight
s la
w.
2)
The
lega
l fr
amew
ork
proh
ibits
un
just
ified
m
onito
ring
of
com
mun
icat
ion
chan
nels
, inc
ludi
ng In
tern
et a
nd IC
T, o
r col
lect
ing
user
s’ in
form
atio
n by
the
auth
oriti
es.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Alb
ania
leg
isla
tion
met
the
bas
ic r
equi
rem
ents
in
orde
r to
fa
cilit
ate
and
supp
ort
the
impl
emen
tatio
n an
d im
prov
emen
t of
new
tec
hnol
ogie
s, n
ew s
ervi
ces
and
new
reg
ulat
ions
in t
he
Alb
ania
n IC
T se
ctor
2)
But
still
Alb
ania
suf
fer
from
the
low
pen
etra
tion
of fi
xed
lines
and
Int
erne
t, l
ow p
erce
ntag
e of
PC
owne
rshi
p, h
igh
cost
s of
Inte
rnet
and
mob
ile a
cces
s an
d se
rvic
es,
low
lev
el
of a
war
enes
s of
the
ben
efits
of
the
use
of I
CT,
digi
tal
gap
betw
een
urba
n an
d ru
ral
area
s an
d in
com
paris
on t
o ot
her
coun
trie
s in
Eur
ope,
low
leve
l of
sta
te s
ubsi
dies
and
lac
k of
po
licie
s to
sup
port
all
thes
e
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Impr
ovem
ent o
f pe
netr
atio
n ev
en in
ru
ral a
nd r
emot
e ar
eas;
2)
Re
vise
Law
on
cost
fo
r in
tern
et a
nd
mob
ile a
cces
s an
d se
rvic
es.
3)
Publ
ic p
olic
ies
for
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f IC
T.Pr
actic
e:1)
Th
ere
are
no c
ases
in p
ract
ice
whe
re r
estr
ictio
ns a
re im
pose
d on
acc
essi
ng a
ny s
ourc
e of
info
rmat
ion,
incl
udin
g th
e In
tern
et o
r IC
T.2)
Th
e In
tern
et is
wid
ely
acce
ssib
le a
nd a
ffor
dabl
e.3)
Th
ere
is n
o pr
actic
e or
cas
es o
f un
just
ified
mon
itorin
g by
the
au
thor
ities
of
com
mun
icat
ion
chan
nels
, inc
ludi
ng t
e In
tern
et o
r IC
T, o
r of
col
lect
ing
user
s’ in
form
atio
n.4)
Th
ere
are
no c
ases
of
polic
e ha
rass
men
t of
mem
bers
of
soci
al
netw
ork
grou
ps.
Prac
tice:
1)
Ther
e ar
e no
cas
es in
pra
ctic
e w
here
res
tric
tions
are
impo
sed
on a
cces
sing
any
sou
rce
of in
form
atio
n, in
clud
ing
the
Inte
rnet
or
ICT;
2)
Inte
rnet
is w
idel
y ac
cess
ible
and
aff
orda
ble
amon
g CS
OS
in
rura
l ar
eas
and
big
citie
s, w
hile
CSO
s, t
he r
emot
e an
d ru
ral
area
s, h
ave
diffi
culti
es w
ith in
tern
et p
enet
ratio
n, a
nd p
aym
ent
affe
ctin
g th
eir
exis
tenc
e an
d ef
fect
ive
oper
atio
ns;
3)
Ther
e is
no
prac
tice
or c
ases
of
unju
stifi
ed m
onito
ring
by th
e au
thor
ities
of
com
mun
icat
ion
chan
nels
, inc
ludi
ng th
e In
tern
et
or IC
T, o
r of
col
lect
ing
user
s’ in
form
atio
n;4)
Th
ere
are
no c
ases
of
polic
e ha
rass
men
t of
mem
bers
of
soci
al n
etw
ork
grou
ps
Prac
tice:
1)
Inte
rnet
pe
netr
atio
n ne
eded
in
rur
al a
nd r
emot
e ar
eas.
2)
Aff
orda
ble
pric
es
of in
tern
et fo
r sm
all C
SOs
in
rem
ote
and
rura
l ar
eas
42A
REA
2:F
RAM
EWO
RK F
OR
CSO
S’ F
INA
NCI
AL
VIA
BILI
TY A
ND
SU
STA
INA
BILI
TY
Sub-
area
2.1.
: Tax
/fisc
al tr
eatm
ent f
or C
SOs
and
thei
r do
nors
Prin
cipl
e: C
SOs
and
dono
rs e
njoy
favo
urab
le ta
x tr
eatm
ent
STA
NDA
RD 1
IND
ICAT
ORS
FIN
DIN
GSRE
COM
MEN
DATI
ON
S FO
R TH
E ST
AN
DARD
1. Ta
x be
nefit
s ar
e av
aila
ble
on v
ario
us
inco
me
sour
ces
of
CSO
s
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
The
law
pro
vide
s ta
x fr
ee t
reat
men
t fo
r al
l gr
ants
and
do
natio
ns s
uppo
rtin
g no
n-fo
r-pr
ofit a
ctiv
ity o
f CS
Os.
2)
Th
e la
w p
rovi
des
tax
bene
fits
for
econ
omic
act
iviti
es o
f CS
Os.
3)
Th
e la
w p
rovi
des
tax
bene
fits
for
pass
ive
inve
stm
ents
of
CSO
s.
4)
The
law
allo
ws
the
esta
blis
hmen
t of
and
pro
vide
s ta
x be
nefit
s fo
r en
dow
men
ts.
Legi
slat
ion:
1. Th
e La
w o
n N
POs,
am
ende
d w
ith t
he L
aw n
o. 9
2/20
13
prov
ides
tha
t in
com
es f
or a
ll do
natio
ns,
gran
ts,
bank
de
posi
ts,
and
mem
bers
hip
fee
are
exem
pted
for
the
in
com
e ta
x;2.
Th
e ne
w la
w o
n VA
T, L
aw n
o. 9
2/20
14 c
larifi
es g
rant
s’
exem
ptio
n fr
om V
AT s
chem
e;3.
Ec
onom
ic a
ctiv
ities
are
not
sub
ject
of
tax
on in
com
es,
only
in t
he c
ases
whe
n th
ese
inco
mes
are
not
use
d fo
r ac
tiviti
es fo
r w
hich
the
orga
niza
tion
is r
egis
tere
d;4.
Ec
onom
ic a
ctiv
ities
of C
SOs
calle
d “a
ctiv
ities
with
pub
lic
inte
rest
” ar
e ex
empt
ed fr
om V
AT;
5.
Onl
y ba
nk
inte
rest
(o
ne
of
the
form
of
pa
ssiv
e in
vest
men
t) a
re e
xcep
ted
from
tax
on in
com
e;6.
Th
ere
is n
o le
gal f
ram
ewor
k fo
r en
dow
men
ts.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Prov
isio
n of
lega
l reg
ulat
ion
for
esta
blis
hmen
t and
tax
bene
fits
for
endo
wm
ents
and
al
l pas
sive
inve
stm
ents
.
Prac
tice:
1)
Ther
e is
no
dire
ct o
r in
dire
ct (
hidd
en)
tax
on g
rant
s re
port
ed2)
Ta
x be
nefit
s fo
r ec
onom
ic a
ctiv
ities
of C
SOs
are
effe
ctiv
e an
d su
ppor
t the
ope
ratio
n of
CSO
s3)
Pa
ssiv
e in
vest
men
ts a
re u
tiliz
ed b
y CS
Os
and
no s
anct
ions
ar
e ap
plie
d in
doi
ng s
o.6)
En
dow
men
ts a
re e
stab
lishe
d w
ithou
t m
ajor
pro
cedu
ral
diffi
culti
es a
nd o
pera
te f
reel
y, w
ithou
t ad
min
istr
ativ
e bu
rden
nor
hig
h fin
anci
al c
ost.
Prac
tice:
1. Th
e do
mes
tic in
com
e so
urce
s re
mai
ns a
t low
leve
l, th
us
not
cont
ribut
ing
sign
ifica
ntly
to
the
finan
cial
via
bilit
y an
d su
stai
nabi
lity
of C
SOs;
2.
The
CSO
s se
ctor
is t
reat
ed in
the
sam
e w
ay a
s ot
her
econ
omic
pro
vide
rs;
3.
Ther
e is
lack
of
info
rmat
ion
and
unde
rsta
ndin
g am
ong
CSO
s w
ith r
egar
ds to
fisc
al tr
eatm
ent;
4.
Endo
wm
ents
are
not
reg
ulat
ed b
y la
w,
but
in p
ract
ice
they
ca
n op
erat
e fr
eely
w
ithou
t bu
rden
som
e pr
oced
ures
.
Prac
tice:
1)
Org
aniz
atio
n of
info
rmat
ion
sess
ions
for
CSO
s in
the
lega
l ch
ange
s re
late
d w
ith th
e fis
cal t
reat
men
t of
gran
ts,
econ
omic
act
ivity
and
oth
er
sour
ces
of fu
nds.
2)
Prom
otio
n of
end
owm
ents
as
inco
me
sour
ces
for
CSO
s.
ARE
A 2
: FRA
MEW
ORK
FO
R CS
OS’
FIN
AN
CIA
L V
IABI
LITY
AN
D S
UST
AIN
ABI
LITY
Sub-
area
2.1.
: Tax
/fisc
al tr
eatm
ent f
or C
SOs
and
thei
r do
nors
Prin
cipl
e: C
SOs
and
dono
rs e
njoy
favo
urab
le ta
x tr
eatm
ent
STA
NDA
RD 2
IND
ICAT
ORS
FIN
DIN
GSRE
COM
MEN
DATI
ON
S FO
R TH
E ST
AN
DARD
2. In
cent
ives
are
pr
ovid
ed fo
r in
divi
dual
an
d co
rpor
ate
givi
ng.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
The
law
pr
ovid
es
tax
dedu
ctio
ns
for
indi
vidu
al
and
corp
orat
e do
natio
ns to
CSO
s.
2)
Ther
e ar
e cl
ear
requ
irem
ents
/con
ditio
ns f
or r
ecei
ving
de
duct
ible
don
atio
ns a
nd t
hese
incl
ude
a w
ide
rang
e of
pu
blic
ly b
enefi
cial
act
iviti
es.
3)
Stat
e po
licie
s re
gard
ing
corp
orat
e so
cial
res
pons
ibili
ty
cons
ider
the
nee
ds o
f CS
Os
and
incl
ude
them
in t
heir
prog
ram
s.
Legi
slat
ion:
1. A
ccor
ding
to
the
Law
on
Spon
sors
hip
spon
sors
are
co
nsid
ered
onl
y bu
sine
ss c
ompa
nies
and
ind
ivid
uals
th
at h
ave
the
“qua
lity
of m
erch
ants
”2.
Th
e le
vel o
f tax
ded
uctio
n is
not
enc
oura
ging
eno
ugh
for
indi
vidu
al a
nd c
orpo
rate
don
atio
ns to
CSO
s 3.
A
lban
ia h
as d
raft
ed t
he N
atio
nal
Act
ion
Plan
on
CSR
and
the
rele
vant
indi
cato
rs, e
stab
lishm
ent
of t
he M
ulti-
Stak
ehol
ders
For
um o
n CS
R, a
nd a
dapt
atio
n of
the
ISO
26
00
00
sta
ndar
ds.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Revi
sion
of
the
law
on
spon
sors
hip
for
furt
her
fisca
l inc
entiv
es/f
acili
ties
for
dona
tions
, as
wel
l as
sim
plifi
catio
n of
pro
cedu
res
for
reim
burs
emen
t.2)
De
velo
pmen
t of
corp
orat
e so
cial
res
pons
ibili
ty th
roug
h na
tiona
l pub
lic p
olic
ies
43
Prac
tice:
1)
Ther
e is
a f
unct
iona
l pr
oced
ure
in p
lace
to
clai
m t
ax
dedu
ctio
ns fo
r in
divi
dual
and
cor
pora
te d
onat
ions
. 2)
CS
Os
are
part
ners
to th
e st
ate
in p
rom
otin
g CS
R.3)
CS
Os
wor
king
in
the
mai
n ar
eas
of p
ublic
int
eres
t,
incl
udin
g hu
man
rig
hts
and
wat
chdo
g or
gani
zatio
ns,
effe
ctiv
ely
enjo
y ta
x de
duct
ible
don
atio
ns.
Prac
tice:
1. Pr
oced
ures
in
pl
ace
to
clai
m
tax
dedu
ctio
n ar
e no
t fu
nctio
nal
and
do n
ot e
ncou
rage
ind
ivid
ual
and
corp
orat
e do
natio
ns2.
CS
Os
are
play
ing
an im
port
ant r
ole
in p
rom
otin
g CS
R3.
N
o sp
ecifi
c de
duct
ions
for
thes
e ty
pes
of o
rgan
izat
ions
Prac
tice:
1)
Crea
tion
of in
cent
ives
that
w
ill lo
wer
the
tax
burd
en
for
ente
rpris
es to
car
ry o
ut
phila
nthr
opic
act
iviti
es
2)
Cons
ulta
tion
of C
SOs
in C
SR
prom
otio
n 3)
Rr
ecog
nitio
n of
the
dona
tion
(mak
ing
it pu
blic
and
vis
ible
)
ARE
A 2
: FRA
MEW
ORK
FO
R CS
OS’
FIN
AN
CIA
L V
IABI
LITY
AN
D S
UST
AIN
ABI
LITY
Sub-
area
2.2
.: St
ate
supp
ort
Prin
cipl
e: S
tate
sup
port
to C
SOs
is p
rovi
ded
in a
tran
spar
ent w
ay a
nd s
pent
in a
n ac
coun
tabl
e m
anne
r
STA
NDA
RD 1
IND
ICAT
ORS
FIN
DIN
GSRE
COM
MEN
DATI
ON
S FO
R TH
E ST
AN
DARD
1. Pu
blic
fund
ing
is a
vaila
ble
for
inst
itutio
nal
deve
lopm
ent o
f CS
Os,
pr
ojec
t sup
port
and
co
-fina
ncin
g of
EU
an
d ot
her
gran
ts
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Ther
e is
a
law
or
na
tiona
l po
licy
(doc
umen
t)
that
re
gula
tes
stat
e su
ppor
t fo
r in
stitu
tiona
l de
velo
pmen
t fo
r CS
Os,
pro
ject
sup
port
and
co-
finan
cing
of
EU f
unde
d pr
ojec
ts.
2)
Ther
e is
a n
atio
nal
leve
l m
echa
nism
for
dis
trib
utio
n of
pu
blic
fund
s to
CSO
s.
3)
Publ
ic fu
nds
for
CSO
s ar
e cl
earl
y pl
anne
d w
ithin
the
stat
e bu
dget
.4)
Th
ere
are
clea
r pr
oced
ures
for
CSO
par
ticip
atio
n in
all
phas
es o
f th
e pu
blic
fund
ing
cycl
e.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Stat
e su
ppor
t fo
r in
stitu
tiona
l de
velo
pmen
t of
CSO
s an
d pr
ojec
t su
ppor
t is
stip
ulat
ed i
n th
e la
w f
or t
he
esta
blis
hmen
t and
func
tioni
ng o
f AS
CS;
2)
Fund
s ar
e pr
ovid
ed o
nly
thro
ugh
natio
nal
mec
hani
sm
whi
ch h
as a
man
date
for
dis
trib
utio
n of
pub
lic f
unds
to
CSO
s an
d th
is is
The
Age
ncy
for
Supp
ort o
f Ci
vil S
ocie
ty
(ASC
S);
3)
ASCS
is w
orki
ng f
or t
he c
reat
ion
of a
Joi
nt F
und
with
ot
her
dono
rs, t
o su
ppor
t co
mm
on p
roje
cts
of s
trat
egic
im
port
ance
in th
e co
untr
y. 2
0%
of
the
annu
al b
udge
t of
ASCS
will
be
dedi
cate
d to
this
Join
t Fun
d;3)
A
con
trib
utio
n of
2,2
% o
f th
e an
nual
tur
nove
r fr
om t
he
Nat
iona
l Lo
tter
y is
ded
icat
ed t
o th
e “g
ood
issu
es”,
not
sp
ecifi
cally
tar
getin
g CS
Os.
CSO
s ca
n co
mpe
te f
or t
his
fund
.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Prep
arat
ion
and
appl
icat
ion
of c
lear
pro
cedu
res
for
CSO
s pa
rtic
ipat
ion
in a
ll ph
ases
of
the
publ
ic fu
ndin
g cy
cle,
incl
udin
g pl
anni
ng a
nd
mon
itorin
g of
pub
lic fu
nd
dist
ribut
ion.
2)
Cr
eatio
n of
spe
cific
bud
get
line
in th
e bu
dget
of
ASCS
de
dica
ted
to th
e in
stitu
tiona
l su
ppor
t of
CSO
s3)
In
clus
iven
ess
of C
SOs
repr
esen
tativ
es in
the
Boar
d fo
r Go
od Is
sues
of
the
Nat
iona
l Lot
tery
.
Prac
tice:
1)
Avai
labl
e pu
blic
fund
ing
resp
onds
to th
e ne
eds
of th
e CS
O
sect
or.
2)
Ther
e ar
e go
vern
men
t bo
dies
with
a c
lear
man
date
for
di
strib
utio
n an
d/or
mon
itorin
g of
the
dist
ribut
ion
of s
tate
fu
ndin
g.3)
Fu
ndin
g is
pre
dict
able
, not
cut
dra
stic
ally
fro
m o
ne y
ear
to a
noth
er; a
nd th
e am
ount
in th
e bu
dget
for C
SOs
is e
asy
to id
entif
y.
4)
CSO
par
ticip
atio
n in
the
publ
ic fu
ndin
g cy
cle
is tr
ansp
aren
t an
d m
eani
ngfu
l.
Prac
tice:
1)
Publ
ic f
undi
ng a
re n
ot a
vaila
ble
for
inst
itutio
nal
and
prog
ram
me
deve
lopm
ent o
f CSO
s. 6
4% o
f the
sur
veye
d CS
Os
decl
are
that
pub
lic f
unds
do
not
resp
ond
to t
heir
need
s at
all;
2)
The
ASCS
prio
rity
area
s of
fun
ding
are
in
line
with
th
e st
rate
gic
prio
ritie
s of
the
gov
ernm
ent
and
do n
ot
cons
ider
the
need
s an
d pr
iorit
ies
of C
SOs.
Prac
tice:
1)
ASCS
sho
uld
cond
uct r
egul
ar
cons
ulta
tions
with
CSO
s to
se
t the
prio
rity
area
s of
pub
lic
fund
ing
in r
espo
nse
to th
e ne
eds
and
prio
ritie
s of
CSO
s.
44A
REA
2: F
RAM
EWO
RK F
OR
CSO
S’ F
INA
NCI
AL
VIA
BILI
TY A
ND
SU
STA
INA
BILI
TY
Sub-
area
2.2
.: St
ate
supp
ort
Prin
cipl
e: S
tate
sup
port
to C
SOs
is p
rovi
ded
in a
tran
spar
ent w
ay a
nd s
pent
in a
n ac
coun
tabl
e m
anne
r
STA
NDA
RD 2
IND
ICAT
ORS
FIN
DIN
GSRE
COM
MEN
DATI
ON
S FO
R TH
E ST
AN
DARD
2. P
ublic
fund
ing
is d
istr
ibut
ed in
a
pres
crib
ed a
nd
tran
spar
ent m
anne
r
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
The
proc
edur
e fo
r di
strib
utio
n of
pub
lic f
unds
is
tran
spar
ent a
nd le
gally
bin
ding
. 2)
Th
e cr
iteria
for
sele
ctio
n ar
e cl
ear
and
publ
ishe
d in
ad
vanc
e.3)
Th
ere
are
clea
r pr
oced
ures
add
ress
ing
issu
es o
f co
nflic
t of
inte
rest
4)
in d
ecis
ion-
mak
ing.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
The
proc
edur
e fo
r de
strib
utio
n of
pub
lic f
unds
as
des
crib
ed in
the
law
for
the
est
ablis
hmen
t of
ASC
S an
d its
inte
rnal
reg
ulat
ion,
allo
ws
for
a tr
ansp
aren
t and
lega
lly b
indi
ng p
roce
dure
;2)
Th
e lis
t of
crit
eria
is p
ublis
hed
durin
g th
e lu
nch
of t
he c
all f
or p
ropo
sals
.3)
Pr
oced
ures
ad
dres
sing
is
sues
of
co
nflic
t of
in
tere
stin
de
cisi
on-m
akin
g ar
e pr
escr
ibed
in
th
e AS
CS la
w, b
ut n
ot im
plem
ente
d pr
oper
ly in
pr
actic
e.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Ado
ptio
n of
cl
ear
proc
edur
es
to
addr
ess
issu
es o
f con
flic
t of i
nter
est i
n de
cisi
on m
akin
g of
ASC
S.
Prac
tice:
1)
Info
rmat
ion
rela
ting
to th
e pr
oced
ures
for
fund
ing
and
info
rmat
ion
on f
unde
d pr
ojec
ts i
s pu
blic
ly
avai
labl
e.2)
St
ate
bodi
es fo
llow
the
proc
edur
e an
d ap
ply
it in
a
harm
oniz
ed w
ay.
3)
The
appl
icat
ion
requ
irem
ents
ar
e no
t to
o bu
rden
som
e fo
r CS
Os.
4)
De
cisi
ons
on
tend
ers
are
cons
ider
ed
fair
and
confl
ict
of
inte
rest
si
tuat
ions
ar
e de
clar
ed
in
adva
nce.
Prac
tice:
1)
ASCS
has
ado
pted
a m
ore
open
dia
logu
e w
ith
the
civi
l so
ciet
y se
ctor
, al
thou
gh t
rans
pare
ncy
and
acco
unta
bilit
y in
fun
ding
dis
trib
utio
n an
d co
nflic
t of
int
eres
t w
ithin
the
age
ncy
rem
ain
prob
lem
atic
.
1)
Incr
ease
d tr
ansp
aren
cy a
nd a
ccou
ntab
ility
of
ASCS
in fu
ndin
g di
strib
utio
n an
d ap
prop
riate
pr
ogra
mm
ing
to r
espo
nd to
the
need
s of
CSO
se
ctor
;2)
Si
mpl
ifier
of
appl
icat
ion
requ
irem
ents
app
lied
and
docu
men
tatio
n re
quire
d by
the
ASCS
;3)
AS
CS s
houl
d pr
ovid
e w
ritte
n, c
lear
and
on-
time
feed
back
to C
SOs
with
reg
ards
to th
e re
ject
ion
of th
eir
prop
osal
s.
ARE
A 2
: FRA
MEW
ORK
FO
R CS
OS’
FIN
AN
CIA
L V
IABI
LITY
AN
D S
UST
AIN
ABI
LITY
Sub-
area
2.2
.: St
ate
supp
ort
Prin
cipl
e: S
tate
sup
port
to C
SOs
is p
rovi
ded
in a
tran
spar
ent w
ay a
nd s
pent
in a
n ac
coun
tabl
e m
anne
r
STA
NDA
RD 3
IND
ICAT
ORS
FIN
DIN
GSRE
COM
MEN
DATI
ON
S FO
R TH
E ST
AN
DARD
3. T
here
is a
cl
ear
syst
em o
f ac
coun
tabi
lity,
m
onito
ring
and
eval
uatio
n of
pub
lic
fund
ing
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
The
proc
edur
e fo
r di
strib
utio
n of
pub
lic f
unds
pr
escr
ibes
cl
ear
mea
sure
s fo
r ac
coun
tabi
lity,
m
onito
ring
and
eval
uatio
n.2)
Th
ere
are
pres
crib
ed s
anct
ions
for
CSO
s th
at
mis
use
fund
s w
hich
ar
e pr
opor
tiona
l to
th
e vi
olat
ion
of p
roce
dure
.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
The
proc
edur
e fo
r di
strib
utio
n of
pub
lic f
unds
an
d sa
nctio
ns a
re p
resc
ribed
in th
e CS
SA L
aw
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Deve
lop
a re
gula
tion
with
cle
ar s
yste
m o
f ac
coun
tabi
lity,
mon
itorin
g an
d ev
alua
tion
45
Prac
tice:
1)
Mon
itorin
g is
ca
rrie
d ou
t co
ntin
uous
ly
and
in
acco
rdan
ce
with
pr
edet
erm
ined
an
d ob
ject
ive
indi
cato
rs.
2)
Regu
lar
eval
uatio
n of
ef
fect
s/im
pact
of
pu
blic
fu
nds
is c
arrie
d ou
t by
sta
te b
odie
s an
d is
pub
licly
av
aila
ble.
Prac
tice:
1)
Inte
rnal
m
onito
ring
is
carr
ied
durin
g th
e pr
ojec
t im
plem
enta
tion
by C
SSA
but
with
out
cons
olid
ated
sta
ndar
ds2)
Th
e re
gula
r ev
alua
tion
of
effe
cts/
impa
ct
of
publ
ic fu
nds
is n
ot c
arrie
d ou
t by
CSSA
Prac
tice:
1)
Mor
e st
udie
s fo
r th
e im
pact
of
the
proj
ects
.
ARE
A 2
: FRA
MEW
ORK
FO
R CS
OS’
FIN
AN
CIA
L V
IABI
LITY
AN
D S
UST
AIN
ABI
LITY
Sub-
area
2.2
.: St
ate
supp
ort
Prin
cipl
e: S
tate
sup
port
to C
SOs
is p
rovi
ded
in a
tran
spar
ent w
ay a
nd s
pent
in a
n ac
coun
tabl
e m
anne
r
STA
NDA
RD 4
IND
ICAT
ORS
FIN
DIN
GSRE
COM
MEN
DATI
ON
S FO
R TH
E ST
AN
DARD
4. N
on-fi
nanc
ial
supp
ort i
s av
aila
ble
from
the
stat
e
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Legi
slat
ion
allo
ws
stat
e au
thor
ities
to
al
loca
te
non-
finan
cial
su
ppor
t,
such
as
st
ate
prop
erty
, re
ntin
g sp
ace
with
out
finan
cial
co
mpe
nsat
ion
(tim
e-bo
und)
, fre
e tr
aini
ng, c
onsu
ltatio
ns a
nd o
ther
re
sour
ces,
to C
SOs
2)
The
non-
finan
cial
sup
port
is p
rovi
ded
unde
r cl
earl
y pr
escr
ibed
pro
cess
es,
base
d on
obj
ectiv
e cr
iteria
an
d do
es n
ot p
rivile
ge a
ny g
roup
.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Legi
slat
ion
allo
ws
stat
e au
thor
ities
to
allo
cate
no
n-fin
anci
al s
uppo
rt,
such
as
stat
e pr
oper
ty,
rent
ing
spac
e w
ithou
t/ o
r w
ith r
educ
ed fi
nanc
ial
com
pens
atio
n2)
Th
ere
no c
lear
pro
cedu
res/
guid
elin
es f
or n
on
finan
cial
sup
port
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Incr
ease
non
fina
ncia
l sup
port
for
CSO
s2)
In
crea
sed
role
of
CSSA
in p
rovi
ding
non
-fin
anci
al s
uppo
rt to
CSO
s.
Prac
tice:
1)
CSO
s us
e no
n-fin
anci
al s
tate
sup
port
.2)
CS
Os
are
trea
ted
in a
n eq
ual
or m
ore
supp
ortiv
e m
anne
r as
co
mpa
red
to
othe
r ac
tors
w
hen
prov
idin
g st
ate
non-
finan
cial
res
ourc
es.
3)
Ther
e ar
e no
cas
es o
f st
ate
auth
oriti
es g
rant
ing
non-
finan
cial
sup
port
onl
y to
CSO
s w
hich
do
not
criti
cize
its
wor
k; o
r of
cas
es o
f de
priv
ing
criti
cal
CSO
s of
sup
port
; or o
ther
wis
e di
scrim
inat
ing
base
d on
loy
alty
, po
litic
al a
ffilia
tion
or o
ther
unl
awfu
l te
rms.
Prac
tice:
1)
Non
-fina
ncia
l sup
port
fro
m t
he s
tate
is r
equi
red
by t
he C
SOs,
as:
sta
te p
rope
rty,
mak
ing
rent
ing
spac
e w
ithou
t fin
anci
al
com
pens
atio
n (t
ime)
, tr
aini
ng, c
onsu
lting
and
oth
er f
ree
reso
urce
s fo
r CS
Os
2)
Ther
e ar
e ca
ses,
esp
ecia
lly a
t lo
cal
leve
l w
hen
a lo
cal
auth
ority
ens
ures
the
non
– fi
nanc
ial
supp
ort,
but
they
are
spo
radi
c ca
ses
3)
CSSA
do
not
prov
ide
non-
finan
cial
sup
port
to
CSO
s
Prac
tice:
1)
Incr
ease
non
fina
ncia
l sup
port
for
CSO
s;2)
In
crea
sed
role
of
CSSA
in p
rovi
ding
non
-fin
anci
al s
uppo
rt to
CSO
s.
46A
REA
2: F
RAM
EWO
RK F
OR
CSO
S’ F
INA
NCI
AL
VIA
BILI
TY A
ND
SU
STA
INA
BILI
TY
Sub-
area
2.3
.: Hu
man
res
ourc
es
Prin
cipl
e: S
tate
pol
icie
s an
d th
e le
gal e
nviro
nmen
t stim
ulat
e an
d fa
cilit
ate
empl
oym
ent,
volu
ntee
ring
and
othe
r en
gage
men
ts w
ith C
SOs
STA
NDA
RD 1
IND
ICAT
ORS
FIN
DIN
GSRE
COM
MEN
DATI
ON
S FO
R TH
E ST
AN
DARD
1. CS
Os
are
trea
ted
in
an e
qual
man
ner
to
othe
r em
ploy
ers
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
CSO
s ar
e tr
eate
d in
an
eq
ual
man
ner
to
othe
r em
ploy
ers
by la
w a
nd p
olic
ies.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
The
Alb
ania
n le
gisl
atio
n re
late
d to
hum
an r
esou
rces
is
unifi
ed fo
r all
empl
oyer
s an
d ap
plie
d w
ithou
t diff
eren
tial
trea
tmen
t for
CSO
s.2)
Th
e le
gal
fram
ewor
k on
soc
ial
insu
ranc
es i
n pl
ace
rem
ains
pro
blem
atic
for
CSO
s w
ith r
egar
ds t
o th
e ob
ligat
ions
to p
ay in
sura
nces
for
at le
ast o
ne e
mpl
oyee
, ev
en f
or t
he p
erio
ds o
f tim
e in
whi
ch t
he o
rgan
izat
ion
has
no p
roje
cts
runn
ing,
no
activ
ities
and
no
fund
s.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Stat
e po
licie
s sh
ould
be
desi
gned
to
pro
mot
e an
d st
imul
ate
empl
oym
ent i
n CS
Os.
2)
The
lega
l fra
mew
ork
putt
ing
oblig
atio
ns fo
r CS
Os
to p
ay
insu
ranc
es fo
r at
leas
t one
em
ploy
ee e
ven
whe
n CS
O h
as n
o ac
tivity
, sho
uld
be r
evis
ed, t
akin
g in
to c
onsi
dera
tion
the
spec
ific
natu
re o
f CS
Os.
Pr
actic
e:1)
If
ther
e ar
e st
ate
ince
ntiv
e pr
ogra
ms
for
empl
oym
ent,
CS
Os
are
trea
ted
like
all o
ther
sec
tors
.2)
Th
ere
are
regu
lar
stat
istic
s on
th
e nu
mbe
r of
em
ploy
ees
in th
e no
n-pr
ofit s
ecto
r.
Prac
tice:
1)
Ther
e ar
e no
inc
entiv
e pr
ogra
ms
for
empl
oym
ent
in
CSO
s. S
tate
pol
icie
s on
em
ploy
men
t ar
e no
t co
nsid
ered
st
imul
ant b
y 45
% o
f CS
Os.
2)
Th
ere
are
no n
atio
nal s
tatis
tics
and
info
rmat
ion
on t
he
empl
oyed
peo
ple
(per
man
ent
and
part
-tim
e) in
the
civ
il so
ciet
y se
ctor
;
Prac
tice:
1)
Deve
lopm
ent o
f a
mec
hani
sm
to c
olle
ct n
atio
nal s
tatis
tics
and
info
rmat
ion
on th
e nu
mbe
r of
em
ploy
ees
in th
e no
n-pr
ofit
sect
or.
ARE
A 2
: FRA
MEW
ORK
FO
R CS
OS’
FIN
AN
CIA
L V
IABI
LITY
AN
D S
UST
AIN
ABI
LITY
Sub-
area
2.3
.: Hu
man
res
ourc
es
Prin
cipl
e: S
tate
pol
icie
s an
d th
e le
gal e
nviro
nmen
t stim
ulat
e an
d fa
cilit
ate
empl
oym
ent,
volu
ntee
ring
and
othe
r en
gage
men
ts w
ith C
SOs
STA
NDA
RD 2
IND
ICAT
ORS
FIN
DIN
GSRE
COM
MEN
DATI
ON
S FO
R TH
E ST
AN
DARD
2. T
here
are
ena
blin
g vo
lunt
eerin
g po
licie
s an
d la
ws
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Legi
slat
ion
stim
ulat
es v
olun
teer
ing
and
inco
rpor
ates
be
st r
egul
ator
y pr
actic
es,
whi
le a
t th
e sa
me
time
allo
win
g fo
r sp
onta
neou
s vo
lunt
eerin
g pr
actic
es.
2)
Ther
e ar
e in
cent
ives
and
sta
te s
uppo
rted
pro
gram
s fo
r th
e de
velo
pmen
t and
pro
mot
ion
of v
olun
teer
ing.
3)
Ther
e ar
e cl
earl
y de
fined
con
trac
tual
rel
atio
nshi
ps a
nd
prot
ectio
ns c
over
ing
orga
nize
d vo
lunt
eerin
g.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Alb
ania
doe
s no
t hav
e a
spec
ial l
aw o
n vo
lunt
aris
m;
2)
The
stat
e pu
ts le
gal o
blig
atio
ns t
o de
clar
e an
d re
gist
er
at t
he e
mpl
oym
ent
offic
e, a
nd t
o pa
y in
sura
nces
for
vo
lunt
eers
, oth
erw
ise
ther
e ar
e ha
rsh
pena
lties
.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Ado
ptio
n of
a L
aw o
n Vo
lunt
aris
m
to r
egul
ate
the
rela
tions
hips
be
twee
n th
e CS
O a
nd v
olun
teer
s,
as w
ell a
s be
twee
n CS
Os
and
the
stat
e.
Prac
tice:
1)
Ince
ntiv
es a
nd p
rogr
ams
are
tran
spar
ent
and
easi
ly
avai
labl
e to
CSO
s an
d th
e po
licy/
stra
tegi
c do
cum
ent/
la
w i
s fu
lly i
mpl
emen
ted,
mon
itore
d an
d ev
alua
ted
perio
dica
lly in
a p
artic
ipat
ory
man
ner.
2)
Adm
inis
trat
ive
proc
edur
es f
or o
rgan
izer
s of
vol
unte
er
activ
ities
or
volu
ntee
rs a
re n
ot c
ompl
icat
ed a
nd a
re
with
out a
ny u
nnec
essa
ry c
osts
.3)
Vo
lunt
eerin
g ca
n ta
ke p
lace
in a
ny f
orm
; the
re a
re n
o ca
ses
of c
ompl
aint
s of
res
tric
tions
on
volu
ntee
ring.
Prac
tice:
1)
76%
of
CSO
s de
clar
e th
at t
hey
have
no
info
rmat
ion
on
volu
ntee
ring
prog
ram
s;2)
Th
ere
is n
o ca
se o
f res
tric
tion
on v
olun
teer
ing
repo
rted
.
Prac
tice:
1)
Incr
ease
d ex
chan
ge o
f inf
orm
atio
n am
ong
CSO
s on
vol
unte
erin
g pr
ogra
ms
and
proc
edur
es
for
orga
niza
tion
of v
olun
teer
ac
tiviti
es.
47
ARE
A 2
: FRA
MEW
ORK
FO
R CS
OS’
FIN
AN
CIA
L V
IABI
LITY
AN
D S
UST
AIN
ABI
LITY
Sub-
area
2.3
.: Hu
man
res
ourc
es
Prin
cipl
e: S
tate
pol
icie
s an
d th
e le
gal e
nviro
nmen
t stim
ulat
e an
d fa
cilit
ate
empl
oym
ent,
volu
ntee
ring
and
othe
r en
gage
men
ts w
ith C
SOs
STA
NDA
RD 3
IND
ICAT
ORS
FIN
DIN
GSRE
COM
MEN
DATI
ON
S FO
R TH
E ST
AN
DARD
3. T
he e
duca
tiona
l sy
stem
pro
mot
es
civi
c en
gage
men
t
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Non
-for
mal
edu
catio
n is
pro
mot
ed t
hrou
gh p
olic
y/st
rate
gy/l
aws.
2)
Ci
vil s
ocie
ty-r
elat
ed s
ubje
cts
are
incl
uded
in th
e of
ficia
l cu
rric
ulum
at a
ll le
vels
of
the
educ
atio
nal s
yste
m.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Non
-for
mal
edu
catio
n is
des
crib
ed in
the
Alb
ania
n La
w
on P
rofe
ssio
nal
Educ
atio
n, b
ut t
here
is
no s
trat
egy/
polic
y/la
w fo
cuse
d on
ly o
n no
n-fo
rmal
edu
catio
n.
2)
Civi
c en
gage
men
t re
late
d su
bjec
ts a
re i
nclu
ded
in t
he
curr
icul
a of
ele
men
tary
and
sec
onda
ry e
duca
tion
as
wel
l as
at th
e un
iver
sity
leve
l.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Form
ulat
ion
of p
olic
ies/
stra
tegi
es
and
law
s on
non
-for
mal
edu
catio
n
Prac
tice:
1)
The
educ
atio
nal
syst
em in
clud
es p
ossi
bilit
ies
for
civi
c en
gage
men
t in
CSO
s.2)
Pr
ovis
ion
of
non-
form
al
educ
atio
n by
CS
Os
is
reco
gniz
ed.
Prac
tice:
1)
Educ
atio
n sy
stem
doe
s no
t stim
ulat
es th
e pr
omot
ion
of
civi
c en
gage
men
ts in
CSO
s;2)
CS
Os
are
wid
ely
invo
lved
in
no
n-fo
rmal
ed
ucat
ion
thro
ugh
prov
isio
n of
trai
ning
s an
d pr
ofes
sion
al c
ours
es.
Prac
tice:
ARE
A 3
: GOV
ERN
MEN
T –
CSO
REL
ATIO
NSH
IP
Sub-
area
3.1.
: Fra
mew
ork
and
prac
tices
for
coop
erat
ion
Prin
cipl
e: T
here
is a
str
ateg
ic a
ppro
ach
to f
urth
erin
g st
ate-
CSO
coo
pera
tion
and
CSO
dev
elop
men
t
STA
NDA
RD 1
IND
ICAT
ORS
FIN
DIN
GSRE
COM
MEN
DATI
ON
S FO
R TH
E ST
AN
DARD
1. Th
e St
ate
reco
gniz
es,
thro
ugh
polic
ies
and
stra
tegi
es,
the
impo
rtan
ce o
f th
e de
velo
pmen
t of
and
co
oper
atio
n w
ith
the
sect
or
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Ther
e ar
e st
rate
gic
docu
men
ts d
ealin
g w
ith t
he s
tate
-CS
O r
elat
ions
hip
and
civi
l soc
iety
dev
elop
men
t.
2)
The
stra
tegi
c do
cum
ent
incl
udes
goa
ls a
nd m
easu
res
as w
ell
as f
undi
ng a
vaila
ble
and
clea
r al
loca
tion
of
resp
onsi
bilit
ies
(act
ion
plan
s in
cl. i
ndic
ator
s).
3)
The
stra
tegi
c do
cum
ent
embr
aces
m
easu
res
that
ha
ve
been
de
velo
ped
in
cons
ulta
tion
with
an
d/or
re
com
men
ded
by C
SOs.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Coop
erat
ion
betw
een
stat
e in
stitu
tions
and
civ
il so
ciet
y or
gani
satio
ns (C
SOs)
has
impr
oved
;2)
Th
e Re
solu
tion
“For
Re
cogn
ition
an
d St
reng
then
ing
the
Role
of
Civi
l So
ciet
y in
the
Pro
cess
of
Dem
ocra
tic
Deve
lopm
ent
of
the
Coun
try”
, ap
prov
ed
by
the
Parl
iam
ent i
s th
e fir
st p
oliti
cal d
ocum
ent t
hat r
ecog
nize
s an
d es
tabl
ishe
s co
ncre
te c
omm
itmen
ts in
this
reg
ard;
3)
Dra
ft R
oad
Map
for
Gov
ernm
ent
Polic
y on
Civ
il So
ciet
y th
at h
as b
een
deve
lope
d in
20
14, w
ith th
e ai
m o
f le
adin
g th
e Go
vern
men
t to
war
d ef
ficie
nt d
ecis
ion-
mak
ing
to
impr
ove
the
envi
ronm
ent
for
coop
erat
ion
with
ci
vil
soci
ety.
Legi
slat
ion:
1) A
dopt
ion
of t
he d
raft
Roa
d M
ap f
or
Gove
rnm
ent P
olic
y on
Civ
il So
ciet
y.
48A
REA
3: G
OVER
NM
ENT
– CS
O R
ELAT
ION
SHIP
Sub-
area
3.1.
: Fra
mew
ork
and
prac
tices
for
coop
erat
ion
Prin
cipl
e: T
here
is a
str
ateg
ic a
ppro
ach
to f
urth
erin
g st
ate-
CSO
coo
pera
tion
and
CSO
dev
elop
men
t
STA
NDA
RD 1
IND
ICAT
ORS
FIN
DIN
GSRE
COM
MEN
DATI
ON
S FO
R TH
E ST
AN
DARD
Prac
tice:
1)
CSO
s fr
om
diff
eren
t ar
eas
of
inte
rest
re
gula
rly
part
icip
ate
in a
ll ph
ases
of
the
stra
tegi
c do
cum
ent
deve
lopm
ent,
impl
emen
tatio
n an
d ev
alua
tion.
2)
The
re a
re e
xam
ples
dem
onst
ratin
g th
at c
oope
ratio
n be
twee
n st
ate
and
CSO
s an
d ci
vil s
ocie
ty d
evel
opm
ent
is im
prov
ed a
nd im
plem
ente
d ac
cord
ing
to o
r be
yond
th
e m
easu
res
envi
sage
d in
the
stra
tegi
c do
cum
ent.
3)
Th
e im
plem
enta
tion
of
the
stra
tegi
c do
cum
ent
is
mon
itore
d, e
valu
ated
and
rev
ised
per
iodi
cally
.4)
St
ate
polic
ies
for
coop
erat
ion
betw
een
stat
e an
d CS
Os
and
civi
l so
ciet
y de
velo
pmen
t ar
e ba
sed
on r
elia
ble
data
col
lect
ed b
y th
e na
tiona
l st
atis
tics
taki
ng i
nto
cons
ider
atio
n th
e di
vers
ity o
f th
e se
ctor
.
Prac
tice:
1)
Ther
e is
an
incr
ease
d co
oper
atio
n an
d w
illin
gnes
s fr
om
stat
e in
stitu
tions
and
CSO
s fo
r th
e es
tabl
ishm
ent
of a
di
alog
ue S
tate
-CSO
for
the
dis
cuss
ion
and
prop
osal
of
stra
tegi
es a
nd p
olic
ies
on c
ivil
soci
ety.
43%
of
the
CSO
s ha
s de
clar
ed t
hat
the
colla
bora
tion
amon
g St
ate
and
CSO
s is
impr
oved
.
Prac
tice:
1) Im
plem
enta
tion
in p
ract
ice
of th
e st
rate
gic
docu
men
ts p
repa
red
and
adop
ted
in 2
014
.
ARE
A 3
: GOV
ERN
MEN
T –
CSO
REL
ATIO
NSH
IP
Sub-
area
3.1.
: Fra
mew
ork
and
prac
tices
for
coop
erat
ion
Prin
cipl
e: T
here
is a
str
ateg
ic a
ppro
ach
to f
urth
erin
g st
ate-
CSO
coo
pera
tion
and
CSO
dev
elop
men
t
STA
NDA
RD 2
IND
ICAT
ORS
FIN
DIN
GSRE
COM
MEN
DATI
ON
S FO
R TH
E ST
AN
DARD
2.
The
Stat
e re
cogn
izes
, th
roug
h th
e op
erat
ion
of it
s in
stitu
tions
, the
im
port
ance
of
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f an
d co
oper
atio
n w
ith th
e se
ctor
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Ther
e is
a n
atio
nal l
evel
inst
itutio
n or
mec
hani
sm w
ith
a m
anda
te t
o fa
cilit
ate
coop
erat
ion
with
civ
il so
ciet
y or
gani
zatio
ns (e
.g.,
Uni
t/O
ffice
for
coop
erat
ion;
con
tact
po
ints
in m
inis
trie
s; c
ounc
il).
2)
The
re a
re b
indi
ng p
rovi
sion
s on
the
inv
olve
men
t of
CS
Os
in th
e de
cisi
ons
take
n by
the
com
pete
nt in
stitu
tion
or m
echa
nism
(s).
Legi
slat
ion
1)
The
draf
t La
w F
or t
he E
stab
lishm
ent
and
Func
tioni
ng o
f th
e N
atio
nal C
ounc
il fo
r Ci
vil S
ocie
ty is
pre
pare
d2)
“R
esol
utio
n fo
r Rec
ogni
tion
and
Stre
ngth
enin
g th
e Ro
le o
f Ci
vil S
ocie
ty in
the
Pro
cess
of
Dem
ocra
tic D
evel
opm
ent
of th
e Co
untr
y” is
ado
pted
by
the
Alb
ania
n Pa
rlia
men
t.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Ado
ptio
n of
the
draf
t Law
For
the
Esta
blis
hmen
t an
d Fu
nctio
ning
of
th
e N
atio
nal
Coun
cil
for
Civi
l So
ciet
y by
th
e A
lban
ian
Parl
iam
ent
49
Prac
tice:
1)
The
natio
nal
leve
l in
stitu
tion
or
mec
hani
sm(s
) ha
s su
ffici
ent
reso
urce
s an
d m
anda
te f
or f
acili
tatin
g CS
O-
gove
rnm
ent
dial
ogue
, di
scus
sing
the
cha
lleng
es a
nd
prop
osin
g th
e m
ain
polic
ies
for
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f Civ
il So
ciet
y.
2)
CSO
s ar
e re
gula
rly
cons
ulte
d an
d in
volv
ed in
pro
cess
es
and
deci
sion
s by
th
e co
mpe
tent
in
stitu
tion
or
mec
hani
sm(s
).
Prac
tice:
1)
Ther
e ar
e es
tabl
ishe
d so
me
mec
hani
sms/
stru
ctur
es a
t th
e ce
ntra
l adm
inis
trat
ion
leve
l, to
dea
l with
civ
il so
ciet
y is
sues
and
to
faci
litat
e th
e in
tera
ctio
n of
the
inst
itutio
n w
ith c
ivil
soci
ety;
2)
Nat
iona
l lev
el in
stitu
tions
hav
e in
suffi
cien
t re
sour
ces
to
faci
litat
e th
e di
alog
ue b
etw
een
CSO
s an
d go
vern
men
t,
and
to p
ropo
se m
ain
polic
ies
for t
he d
evel
opm
ent o
f civ
il so
ciet
y.
Prac
tice:
1)
Deve
lopm
ent o
f pr
ogra
ms
to
incr
ease
cap
aciti
es a
nd r
esou
rces
of
sta
te in
stitu
tions
to fa
cilit
ate
CSO
-gov
ernm
ent d
ialo
gue;
2)
Deve
lopm
ent o
f pr
ogra
ms
to
incr
ease
cap
aciti
es o
f CS
Os
to fa
cilit
ate
CSO
-gov
ernm
ent
dial
ogue
;3)
Co
nsul
tatio
n w
ith C
SOs
for
the
prep
arat
ion
of la
ws/
byla
ws
and
stra
tegi
es fo
r th
e es
tabl
ishm
ent
of n
atio
nal l
evel
mec
hani
sms
of c
oope
ratio
n an
d di
alog
ue
betw
een
CSO
s an
d th
e st
ate
shou
ld b
e co
nduc
ted
by th
e st
ruct
ures
in c
harg
e.
ARE
A 3
: GOV
ERN
MEN
T –
CSO
REL
ATIO
NSH
IP
Sub-
area
3.2
.: In
volv
emen
t in
polic
y- a
nd d
ecis
ion-
mak
ing
proc
esse
s
Prin
cipl
e: C
SOs
are
effe
ctiv
ely
incl
uded
in th
e po
licy
and
deci
sion
-mak
ing
proc
ess
STA
NDA
RD 1
IND
ICAT
ORS
FIN
DIN
GSRE
COM
MEN
DATI
ON
S FO
R TH
E ST
AN
DARD
1. Th
ere
are
stan
dard
s en
ablin
g CS
O
invo
lvem
ent i
n de
cisi
on-m
akin
g,
whi
ch a
llow
for
CSO
inpu
t in
a tim
ely
man
ner.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Ther
e ar
e cl
earl
y de
fined
sta
ndar
ds o
n th
e in
volv
emen
t of
CSO
s in
the
pol
icy
and
deci
sion
mak
ing
proc
esse
s in
lin
e w
ith
best
re
gula
tory
pr
actic
es
pres
crib
ing
min
imum
re
quire
men
ts
whi
ch
ever
y po
licy-
mak
ing
proc
ess
need
s to
fulfi
l.2)
St
ate
polic
ies
prov
ide
for
educ
atio
nal
prog
ram
s/tr
aini
ngs
for
civi
l se
rvan
ts o
n CS
O in
volv
emen
t in
the
w
ork
of p
ublic
inst
itutio
ns.
3)
Inte
rnal
reg
ulat
ions
req
uire
spe
cifie
d un
its o
r of
ficer
s in
gov
ernm
ent,
lin
e m
inis
trie
s or
oth
er g
over
nmen
t ag
enci
es
to
coor
dina
te,
mon
itor
and
repo
rt
CSO
in
volv
emen
t in
thei
r w
ork.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
The
Law
on
Publ
ic N
otifi
catio
n an
d Co
nsul
tatio
n ad
opte
d in
20
14 p
uts
forw
ard
the
requ
irem
ents
for
con
sulta
tion
on d
raft
law
s, s
trat
egie
s an
d po
licie
s w
ith t
he g
roup
of
inte
rest
;2)
Th
e la
w p
redi
cts
the
crea
tion
of t
he e
lect
roni
c re
gist
er
for
publ
ic n
otifi
catio
n an
d co
nsul
tatio
n th
at g
uara
ntee
s ac
cess
to a
ll gr
oup
of in
tere
st;
3)
The
law
al
so
prov
ides
op
tions
fo
r re
dres
s if
the
prov
isio
ns fo
r co
nsul
tatio
ns a
re n
ot r
espe
cted
.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Prep
arat
ion
and
esta
blis
hmen
t of
mec
hani
sms
to e
nsur
e pr
oper
im
plem
enta
tion
of
the
law
on
no
tifica
tion
and
cons
ulta
tion
by
all p
ublic
inst
itutio
ns.
50A
REA
3: G
OVER
NM
ENT
– CS
O R
ELAT
ION
SHIP
Sub-
area
3.2
.: In
volv
emen
t in
polic
y- a
nd d
ecis
ion-
mak
ing
proc
esse
s
Prin
cipl
e: C
SOs
are
effe
ctiv
ely
incl
uded
in th
e po
licy
and
deci
sion
-mak
ing
proc
ess
STA
NDA
RD 1
IND
ICAT
ORS
FIN
DIN
GSRE
COM
MEN
DATI
ON
S FO
R TH
E ST
AN
DARD
Prac
tice:
1)
Publ
ic in
stitu
tions
rou
tinel
y in
vite
all
inte
rest
ed C
SOs
to
com
men
t on
polic
y/le
gal i
nitia
tives
at a
n ea
rly
stag
e2)
CS
Os
are
prov
ided
with
ade
quat
e in
form
atio
n on
the
co
nten
t of
the
dra
ft d
ocum
ents
and
det
ails
of
the
cons
ulta
tion
3)
with
suf
ficie
nt ti
me
to r
espo
nd.
4)
Writ
ten
feed
back
on
the
resu
lts o
f co
nsul
tatio
ns i
s m
ade
publ
icly
ava
ilabl
e by
pub
lic in
stitu
tions
, inc
ludi
ng
reas
ons
why
so
me
reco
mm
enda
tions
w
ere
not
incl
uded
. 5)
Th
e m
ajor
ity o
f ci
vil
serv
ants
in
char
ge o
f dr
aftin
g pu
blic
po
licie
s ha
ve
succ
essf
ully
co
mpl
eted
th
e ne
cess
ary
educ
atio
nal p
rogr
ams/
trai
ning
. 6)
M
ost
of t
he u
nits
/offi
cers
coo
rdin
atin
g an
d m
onito
ring
publ
ic c
onsu
ltatio
ns a
re f
unct
iona
l and
hav
e su
ffici
ent
capa
city
.
Prac
tice:
1)
Incr
ease
d pa
rtic
ipat
ion
of c
ivil
soci
ety
in d
ecis
ion
and
polic
y m
akin
g pr
oces
s, a
s a
resu
lt of
a m
ore
open
, co
llabo
rativ
e, a
nd t
rans
pare
nt a
ppro
ach
by t
he s
tate
in
stitu
tions
at t
he c
entr
al le
vel,
2)
Info
rmat
ion
on t
he d
raft
doc
umen
ts is
not
pro
vide
d in
tim
e.
3)
Writ
ten
feed
back
on
the
resu
lts o
f th
e co
nsul
tatio
ns
is
not
prov
ided
an
d re
ason
s fo
r no
t ta
king
in
to
cons
ider
atio
n th
e re
com
men
datio
ns p
rovi
ded
by C
SOs
are
not p
rovi
ded.
Prac
tice:
1)
Prep
arat
ion
and
impl
emen
tatio
n of
cle
ar r
ules
and
pro
cedu
re o
n th
e co
nsul
tatio
n pr
oces
ses
by a
ll st
ate
inst
itutio
ns
2)
Esta
blis
hmen
t of
a pr
actic
e by
st
ate
inst
itutio
n to
pro
vide
in-
time
and
writ
ten
feed
back
on
the
resu
lts o
f th
e co
nsul
tatio
n pr
oces
s.
ARE
A 3
: GOV
ERN
MEN
T –
CSO
REL
ATIO
NSH
IP
Sub-
area
3.2
.: In
volv
emen
t in
polic
y- a
nd d
ecis
ion-
mak
ing
proc
esse
s
Prin
cipl
e: C
SOs
are
effe
ctiv
ely
incl
uded
in th
e po
licy
and
deci
sion
-mak
ing
proc
ess
STA
NDA
RD 2
IND
ICAT
ORS
FIN
DIN
GSRE
COM
MEN
DATI
ON
S FO
R TH
E ST
AN
DARD
2. A
ll dr
aft p
olic
ies
and
law
s ar
e ea
sily
acc
essi
ble
to th
e pu
blic
in a
tim
ely
man
ner
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Exis
ting
legi
slat
ion
oblig
es
publ
ic
inst
itutio
ns
to
mak
e al
l dr
aft
and
adop
ted
law
s an
d po
licie
s pu
blic
, an
d ex
cept
ions
are
cle
arly
defi
ned
and
in l
ine
with
in
tern
atio
nal n
orm
s an
d be
st p
ract
ices
.2)
Cl
ear
mec
hani
sms
and
proc
edur
es fo
r ac
cess
to
publ
ic
info
rmat
ion/
docu
men
ts e
xist
.3)
Th
ere
are
clea
rly
pres
crib
ed
sanc
tions
fo
r ci
vil
serv
ants
/uni
ts fo
r br
each
ing
the
lega
l req
uire
men
ts o
n ac
cess
to p
ublic
info
rmat
ion.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Ado
ptio
n of
the
Law
No.
119
/20
14 O
n th
e Ri
ght
of
Info
rmat
ion,
in
lin
e w
ith
inte
rnat
iona
l st
anda
rds,
es
tabl
ishe
s cl
ear
mec
hani
sms
and
proc
edur
es
for
acce
ss to
pub
lic in
form
atio
n.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Esta
blis
hmen
t of
mec
hani
sms
to
mon
itor
prop
er im
plem
enta
tion
of th
e la
w in
the
right
of
info
rmat
ion.
51
Prac
tice:
1)
Publ
ic i
nstit
utio
ns a
ctiv
ely
publ
ish
draf
t an
d ad
opte
d la
ws
and
polic
ies,
unl
ess
they
are
sub
ject
to
lega
lly
pres
crib
ed e
xcep
tions
. 2)
Pu
blic
ins
titut
ions
ans
wer
the
maj
ority
of
requ
ests
fo
r ac
cess
to
publ
ic i
nfor
mat
ion
with
in t
he d
eadl
ine
pres
crib
ed b
y la
w,
in a
cle
ar f
orm
at,
prov
ide
writ
ten
expl
anat
ions
on
the
reas
ons
for
refu
sal,
and
high
light
th
e rig
ht to
app
eal a
nd th
e pr
oced
ure
for
appe
alin
g.
3)
Case
s of
vio
latio
ns o
f th
e la
w a
re s
anct
ione
d.
Prac
tice:
1)
Som
e im
prov
emen
ts a
re m
ade
by t
he p
arlia
men
t an
d ot
her
publ
ic in
stitu
tions
whe
n dr
aft
law
s ar
e pu
blis
hed
on t
heir
web
site
. Dra
ft la
ws
are
not
publ
ishe
d by
pub
lic
auth
oriti
es2)
A
lthou
gh im
prov
emen
ts in
the
lega
l fr
amew
ork,
pub
lic
acce
ss i
n dr
aft
polic
ies
and
draf
t la
ws
is e
valu
ated
di
fficu
lt by
CSO
s.
Prac
tice:
1)
Esta
blis
hmen
t of
clea
r pr
oced
ures
by
all p
ublic
in
stitu
tions
to p
rovi
de w
ritte
n an
d on
-tim
e fe
edba
ck o
n th
e re
ques
ts
for
acce
ss to
info
rmat
ion,
in li
ne
with
the
new
law
ado
pted
. 2)
Pu
blic
aut
horit
ies
and
CSO
s sh
ould
pro
vide
info
rmat
ion
to th
e pu
blic
on
the
chan
ges
in th
e la
w
on r
ight
of
info
rmat
ion.
ARE
A 3
: GOV
ERN
MEN
T –
CSO
REL
ATIO
NSH
IP
Sub-
area
3.2
.: In
volv
emen
t in
polic
y- a
nd d
ecis
ion-
mak
ing
proc
esse
s
Prin
cipl
e: C
SOs
are
effe
ctiv
ely
incl
uded
in th
e po
licy
and
deci
sion
-mak
ing
proc
ess
STA
NDA
RD 3
IND
ICAT
ORS
FIN
DIN
GSRE
COM
MEN
DATI
ON
S FO
R TH
E ST
AN
DARD
3. C
SO
repr
esen
tativ
es
are
equa
l pa
rtne
rs in
di
scus
sion
s in
cr
oss-
sect
or
bodi
es a
nd a
re
sele
cted
thro
ugh
clea
rly
defin
ed
crite
ria a
nd
proc
esse
s
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Exis
ting
legi
slat
ion
requ
ires
publ
ic in
stitu
tions
to in
vite
CS
O r
epre
sent
ativ
es o
n to
diff
eren
t dec
isio
n-m
akin
g an
d/or
adv
isor
y bo
dies
cre
ated
by
publ
ic in
stitu
tions
. 2)
Th
ere
are
clea
r gui
delin
es o
n ho
w to
ens
ure
appr
opria
te
repr
esen
tatio
n fr
om c
ivil
soci
ety,
bas
ed o
n tr
ansp
aren
t an
d pr
edet
erm
ined
crit
eria
.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Ther
e is
no
spec
ific
law
reg
ulat
ing
the
issu
e of
CSO
s as
eq
ual
part
ners
rep
rese
nted
in
advi
sory
bod
ies,
but
in
diff
eren
t la
ws
it is
san
ctio
ned
the
crea
tion
of a
dvis
ory
bodi
es
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Ado
ptio
n of
the
lega
l fra
mew
ork
that
wou
ld r
equi
re p
ublic
in
stitu
tions
to in
vite
CSO
re
pres
enta
tives
to d
ecis
ion-
mak
ing
and
advi
sory
bod
ies
crea
ted
by p
ublic
inst
itutio
ns.
2)
Publ
ic in
stitu
tions
sho
uld
prep
are
and
publ
ish
clea
r gu
idel
ines
to
ens
ure
tran
spar
ency
and
fa
irnes
s in
the
sele
ctio
n of
re
pres
enta
tives
from
CSO
s in
ad
viso
ry b
odie
s.
Prac
tice:
1)
Deci
sion
-mak
ing
and
advi
sory
bod
ies
on i
ssue
s an
d po
licie
s re
leva
nt f
or c
ivil
soci
ety
gene
rally
incl
ude
CSO
re
pres
enta
tives
.2)
CS
O r
epre
sent
ativ
es i
n th
ese
bodi
es a
re e
nabl
ed t
o fr
eely
pre
sent
and
def
end
thei
r po
sitio
ns, w
ithou
t bei
ng
sanc
tione
d.3)
CS
O r
epre
sent
ativ
es a
re s
elec
ted
thro
ugh
sele
ctio
n pr
oces
ses
whi
ch a
re c
onsi
dere
d fa
ir an
d tr
ansp
aren
t.1)
Pa
rtic
ipat
ion
in t
hese
bod
ies
does
not
pre
vent
CSO
s fr
om u
sing
alte
rnat
ive
way
s of
adv
ocac
y or
pro
mot
ing
alte
rnat
ive
stan
d-po
ints
whi
ch a
re n
ot in
lin
e w
ith t
he
posi
tion
of th
e re
spec
tive
body
.
Prac
tice:
1)
Ther
e is
lack
of
info
rmat
ion
amon
g CS
Os
rega
rdin
g th
e ex
iste
nce
and
func
tioni
ng o
f su
ch b
odie
s/st
ruct
ures
2)
Part
icip
atio
n of
CSO
s in
adv
isor
y bo
dies
is c
onsi
dere
d di
fficu
lt 3)
Th
e se
lect
ion
proc
edur
es a
re c
onsi
dere
d un
clea
r an
d no
n –
tran
spar
ent b
y CS
Os.
4)
Pa
rtic
ipat
ion
in t
hese
bod
ies
does
not
pre
vent
CSO
s fr
om u
sing
alte
rnat
ive
way
s of
adv
ocac
y or
pro
mot
ing
alte
rnat
ive
stan
d-po
ints
whi
ch a
re n
ot in
lin
e w
ith t
he
posi
tion
of th
e re
spec
tive
body
Prac
tice:
1)
Publ
ic a
utho
ritie
s sh
ould
us
e di
ffer
ent m
eans
of
com
mun
icat
ion
to p
ublis
h in
form
atio
n on
the
esta
blis
hmen
t of
adv
isor
y bo
dies
/str
uctu
res
2)
CSO
s sh
ould
be
invo
lved
in
the
sele
ctio
n pr
oces
s, in
ord
er
to in
crea
se c
orre
ctne
ss a
nd
tran
spar
ency
of
the
proc
ess.
3)
In
crea
sed
capa
cita
tes
of C
SOs
to
be e
qual
par
tner
s in
thes
e bo
dies
; 4)
Es
tabl
ishm
ent o
f cl
ear
rule
s of
pa
rtic
ipat
ion;
cle
ar r
oles
and
re
spon
sibi
litie
s ba
sed
on w
ritte
n ag
reem
ents
52A
REA
3: G
OVER
NM
ENT
– CS
O R
ELAT
ION
SHIP
Sub-
area
3.3
.: Co
llabo
ratio
n in
ser
vice
pro
visi
on
Prin
cipl
e: T
here
is a
sup
port
ive
envi
ronm
ent f
or C
SO in
volv
emen
t in
serv
ice
prov
isio
n
STA
NDA
RD 1
IND
ICAT
ORS
FIN
DIN
GSRE
COM
MEN
DATI
ON
S FO
R TH
E ST
AN
DARD
1. CS
Os
are
enga
ged
in d
iffer
ent
serv
ices
and
co
mpe
te fo
r st
ate
cont
ract
s on
an
equa
l bas
is to
ot
her
prov
ider
s
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Exis
ting
legi
slat
ion
allo
ws
CSO
s to
pro
vide
ser
vice
s in
va
rious
are
as,
such
as
educ
atio
n, h
ealth
care
, so
cial
se
rvic
es.
2)
CSO
s ha
ve n
o ba
rrie
rs t
o pr
ovid
ing
serv
ices
tha
t ar
e no
t defi
ned
by la
w (“
addi
tiona
l” s
ervi
ces)
. 3)
E
xist
ing
legi
slat
ion
does
not
add
add
ition
al b
urde
nsom
e re
quire
men
ts o
n CS
Os
that
do
not
exis
t fo
r ot
her
serv
ice
prov
ider
s.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
The
Law
on
Non
Pro
fit O
rgan
izat
ion
base
d on
whi
ch
CSO
s ex
erci
ses
activ
ities
in t
he g
ood
and
bene
fit o
f th
e pu
blic
, an
d th
e La
w o
n So
cial
Ass
ista
nce
and
Serv
ices
al
low
s CS
Os
to d
eliv
er p
rivat
ely
fund
ed s
ocia
l ser
vice
s as
wel
l as
publ
ic s
ervi
ces
with
fund
ing
by s
tate
bud
get.
2)
To
del
iver
soc
ial
care
ser
vice
s, C
SOs
need
to
obta
in a
lic
ense
by
the
Min
istr
y of
Soc
ial W
elfa
re a
nd Y
outh
bas
ed
on c
riter
ia a
nd p
roce
dure
s de
fined
in a
dec
isio
n by
the
Co
unci
l of
Min
iste
rs.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Ado
ptio
n of
a n
ew la
w o
n so
cial
pr
ocur
emen
t.
2)
Esta
blis
hmen
t of
a ne
w
proc
edur
e fo
r so
cial
con
trac
ting,
se
para
te fr
om th
e ge
nera
l pub
lic
proc
urem
ent p
roce
dure
s.
Prac
tice:
1)
CSO
s ar
e ab
le t
o ob
tain
con
trac
ts in
com
petit
ion
with
ot
her
prov
ider
s an
d ar
e en
gage
d in
var
ious
ser
vice
s (e
.g.,
educ
atio
n, h
ealth
, res
earc
h, a
nd tr
aini
ng).
2)
CSO
s ar
e in
clud
ed i
n al
l st
ages
of
deve
lopi
ng a
nd
prov
idin
g se
rvic
es (n
eeds
ass
essm
ent,
det
erm
inin
g th
e se
rvic
es t
hat
best
add
ress
the
nee
ds,
mon
itorin
g an
d ev
alua
tion)
.3)
W
hen
prio
r re
gist
ratio
n/lic
ensi
ng
is
requ
ired,
th
e pr
oced
ure
for
obta
inin
g th
at is
not
ove
rly
burd
enso
me.
Prac
tice:
1)
The
cont
ract
ing
of C
SOs
from
the
stat
e is
lim
ited
in b
asic
so
cial
ser
vice
s re
late
d w
ith th
e re
inte
grat
ion
of p
erso
ns
in n
eeds
, as
the
vic
tims
of t
raffi
ckin
g an
d do
mes
tic
viol
ence
, or
Rom
a in
tegr
atio
n.
2)
CSO
s ar
e no
t in
clud
ed in
all
stag
es o
f de
velo
ping
and
pr
ovid
ing
serv
ices
.3)
Th
e pr
oced
ure
for
obta
inin
g a
prio
r lic
ensi
ng is
som
ehow
bu
rden
som
e fo
r CS
Os.
Prac
tice:
1)
Incl
usiv
enes
s of
CSO
s no
t onl
y in
the
deliv
ery
of s
ervi
ces
but
also
in th
e id
entifi
catio
n of
nee
ds,
plan
ning
the
soci
al s
ervi
ces
and
in m
onito
ring
the
loca
l soc
ial
polic
y sh
ould
be
ensu
red
by s
tate
au
thor
ities
.2)
Ea
sine
ss o
f pr
oced
ures
for
obta
inin
g a
licen
se b
y CS
Os
ARE
A 3
: GOV
ERN
MEN
T –
CSO
REL
ATIO
NSH
IP
Sub-
area
3.3
.: Co
llabo
ratio
n in
ser
vice
pro
visi
on
Prin
cipl
e: T
here
is a
sup
port
ive
envi
ronm
ent f
or C
SO in
volv
emen
t in
serv
ice
prov
isio
n
STA
NDA
RD 2
IND
ICAT
ORS
FIN
DIN
GSRE
COM
MEN
DATI
ON
S FO
R TH
E ST
AN
DARD
2. T
he s
tate
has
co
mm
itted
to
fund
ing
serv
ices
an
d th
e fu
ndin
g is
pre
dict
able
and
av
aila
ble
over
a
long
er-t
erm
pe
riod
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
The
budg
et
prov
ides
fu
ndin
g fo
r va
rious
ty
pes
of
serv
ices
whi
ch c
ould
be
prov
ided
by
CSO
s2)
, i
nclu
ding
mul
ti-ye
ar fu
ndin
g.3)
Th
ere
are
no l
egal
bar
riers
to
CSO
s re
ceiv
ing
publ
ic
fund
ing
for
the
prov
isio
n of
diff
eren
t se
rvic
es (
eith
er
thro
ugh
proc
urem
ent
or t
hrou
gh a
noth
er c
ontr
actin
g or
gra
nts
mec
hani
sm).
4)
CSO
s ca
n si
gn l
ong-
term
con
trac
ts f
or p
rovi
sion
of
serv
ices
.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Fina
ncin
g op
port
uniti
es fr
om th
e st
ate
have
bee
n lo
w
and
the
gove
rnm
ents
hav
e fa
iled
to c
ontr
act C
SOs
for
an in
clus
ive
stra
tegy
to s
uppo
rt th
e de
velo
pmen
t of
civi
l soc
iety
. 2)
Th
e te
nder
pro
cess
is v
ery
diffi
cult,
the
expe
nses
for
the
prep
arat
ion
of th
e re
quire
d do
cum
ents
are
hig
h, a
nd
the
CSO
s ha
ve n
o liq
uidi
ty to
cov
er th
ese
expe
nses
. 3)
If
ther
e ar
e ca
ses
of s
tate
fund
ing,
the
fund
ing
avai
labl
e is
for
shor
t ter
m p
erio
d, m
axim
um o
f on
e ye
ar.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Esta
blis
hmen
t of
mec
hani
sms
that
wou
ld a
llow
sta
te a
utho
ritie
s to
sig
n lo
ng-t
erm
con
trac
ts w
ith
CSO
s fo
r pr
ovis
ion
of s
ervi
ces.
2)
Proc
urem
ent p
roce
dure
sho
uld
also
be
suffi
cien
tly s
impl
e (n
ot
too
burd
enso
me)
and
sho
uld
allo
w fo
r CS
Os
to ta
ke p
art i
n it
3)
Secu
red
fund
ing
in th
e lo
cal
gove
rnm
ent b
udge
t and
na
tiona
l bud
get f
or th
e de
liver
y of
com
mun
ity-b
ased
soc
ial
serv
ices
.
53
Prac
tice:
1)
CSO
s ar
e re
cipi
ents
of
fund
ing
for
serv
ices
.2)
C
SOs
rece
ive
suffi
cien
t fun
ding
to c
over
the
basi
c co
sts
of th
e se
rvic
es th
ey a
re c
ontr
acte
d to
pro
vide
3)
, inc
ludi
ng p
ropo
rtio
nate
inst
itutio
nal (
over
head
) cos
ts.
4)
Ther
e ar
e no
del
ays
in p
aym
ents
and
the
fund
ing
is
flex
ible
with
the
aim
of
prov
idin
g th
e be
st q
ualit
y of
se
rvic
es.
Prac
tice:
1)
Mos
t of
CS
Os
do
not
have
re
venu
es
from
pu
blic
pr
ocur
emen
t, n
or fr
om th
e st
ate
cont
ract
s.2)
Th
e fu
nd is
dis
burs
ed a
t th
e en
d of
the
pro
ject
, mak
ing
it di
fficu
lt th
e im
plem
enta
tions
of
the
proj
ect
for
the
CSO
s th
at d
o no
t ha
ve li
quid
ities
to
cove
r th
e ex
pens
es.
In s
ome
case
s, t
he f
undi
ng t
o no
t co
ver
adm
inis
trat
ive
cost
s of
the
orga
niza
tion
need
ed fo
r th
e im
plem
enta
tion
of th
e pr
ojec
t.3)
Th
ere
are
dela
ys in
pay
men
t and
fund
ing
is n
ot fl
exib
le.
Prac
tice:
1)
Publ
ic fu
ndin
g sh
ould
cov
er
adm
inis
trat
ive
cost
s of
CSO
s fo
r th
e im
plem
enta
tion
of th
e pr
ojec
t, s
houl
d be
dis
burs
ed in
tim
e an
d sh
ould
be
flex
ible
.
ARE
A 3
: GOV
ERN
MEN
T –
CSO
REL
ATIO
NSH
IP
Sub-
area
3.3
.: Co
llabo
ratio
n in
ser
vice
pro
visi
on
Prin
cipl
e: T
here
is a
sup
port
ive
envi
ronm
ent f
or C
SO in
volv
emen
t in
serv
ice
prov
isio
n
STA
NDA
RD 3
IND
ICAT
ORS
FIN
DIN
GSRE
COM
MEN
DATI
ON
S FO
R TH
E ST
AN
DARD
3. T
he s
tate
has
cl
earl
y de
fined
pr
oced
ures
for
cont
ract
ing
serv
ices
whi
ch
allo
w fo
r tr
ansp
aren
t se
lect
ion
of
serv
ice
prov
ider
s,
incl
udin
g CS
Os
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Ther
e is
a c
lear
and
tra
nspa
rent
pro
cedu
re t
hrou
gh
whi
ch t
he f
undi
ng f
or s
ervi
ces
is d
istr
ibut
ed a
mon
g pr
ovid
ers.
2)
Pric
e is
not
the
lead
crit
erio
n fo
r se
lect
ion
of s
ervi
ce
prov
ider
s an
d be
st v
alue
is d
eter
min
ed b
y bo
th s
ervi
ce
qual
ity a
nd a
fina
ncia
l ass
essm
ent o
f co
nten
ders
.3)
Th
ere
are
clea
r gu
idel
ines
on
ho
w
to
ensu
re
tran
spar
ency
and
avo
id c
onfl
ict o
f in
tere
sts.
4)
Ther
e is
a r
ight
to a
ppea
l aga
inst
com
petit
ion
resu
lts.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)Th
e Pu
blic
Pro
cure
men
t la
w p
resc
ribes
cle
ar p
roce
dure
s an
d ty
pes
of p
roce
dure
s fo
r th
e fu
nds
for
serv
ices
di
strib
utio
n.2)
Pr
ice
is th
e le
ad c
riter
ia fo
r se
lect
ion
of s
ervi
ce
prov
ider
s, n
ot ta
king
into
con
side
ratio
n th
e qu
ality
of
the
serv
ice
deliv
ered
. 3)
Ther
e ar
e no
t cle
ar g
uida
nce
to e
nsur
e tr
ansp
aren
cy a
nd
avoi
d co
nflic
t of
inte
rest
.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Prov
isio
ns in
the
proc
urem
ent
legi
slat
ion
shou
ld a
llow
for
the
sele
ctio
n of
the
serv
ice
prov
ider
ba
sed
on th
e ca
paci
ty o
f th
e ca
ndid
ate
and
the
qual
ity o
f se
rvic
e an
d no
t on
the
low
est
finan
cial
off
er.
2)
Pres
crip
tion
of c
lear
rul
es a
nd
guid
elin
es fo
r pr
ocur
emen
t uni
ts
to e
nsur
e tr
ansp
aren
cy a
nd a
void
co
nflic
t of
inte
rest
s.
Prac
tice:
1)
Man
y se
rvic
es a
re c
ontr
acte
d to
CSO
s.2)
Co
mpe
titio
ns
are
cons
ider
ed
fair
and
confl
icts
of
in
tere
st a
re a
void
ed.
3)
Stat
e of
ficia
ls h
ave
suffi
cien
t ca
paci
ty t
o or
gani
ze t
he
proc
edur
es.
Prac
tice:
1)
Few
ser
vice
s ar
e co
ntra
cted
to C
SOs
2)
Lack
of
info
rmat
ion
and
clar
ity r
egar
ding
the
leg
al
fram
ewor
k an
d te
chni
calit
ies
for
CSO
s co
ntra
ctin
g am
ong
the
publ
ic o
ffici
als
deal
ing
with
pro
cure
men
t.
Prac
tice:
1)
Trai
ning
s fo
r pu
blic
offi
cial
on
cont
ract
ing
CSO
s fo
r pu
blic
se
rvic
es.
1)
Incr
ease
d ca
paci
ties
of C
SOs
to
part
icip
ate
in p
ublic
tend
ers.
54A
REA
3: G
OVER
NM
ENT
– CS
O R
ELAT
ION
SHIP
Sub-
area
3.3
.: Co
llabo
ratio
n in
ser
vice
pro
visi
on
Prin
cipl
e: T
here
is a
sup
port
ive
envi
ronm
ent f
or C
SO in
volv
emen
t in
serv
ice
prov
isio
n
STA
NDA
RD 4
IND
ICAT
ORS
FIN
DIN
GSRE
COM
MEN
DATI
ON
S FO
R TH
E ST
AN
DARD
4. T
here
is a
cle
ar
syst
em o
f ac
coun
tabi
lity,
m
onito
ring
and
eval
uatio
n of
se
rvic
e pr
ovis
ion
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Ther
e is
lega
l pos
sibi
lity
for
mon
itorin
g bo
th s
pend
ing
and
the
qual
ity o
f se
rvic
e pr
ovid
ers.
2)
Ther
e ar
e cl
ear
qual
ity
stan
dard
s an
d m
onito
ring
proc
edur
es fo
r se
rvic
es.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
The
law
on
publ
ic p
rocu
rem
ent
fore
sees
obl
igat
ions
va
lid
thro
ugho
ut
the
perf
orm
ance
of
th
e co
ntra
ct
for
serv
ice
prov
ider
s.
The
law
fo
rese
es
stan
dard
s fo
r se
rvic
e pr
ovid
er’s
qua
lifica
tions
, bu
t no
t fo
r th
e m
onito
ring
proc
edur
es.
Legi
slat
ion:
1)
Esta
blis
hmen
t of
clea
r qu
ality
st
anda
rds
and
mon
itorin
g pr
oced
ures
for
serv
ices
in th
e pu
blic
pro
cure
men
t leg
isla
tion.
Prac
tice:
1)
CSO
s ar
e no
t sub
ject
to e
xces
sive
con
trol
.2)
M
onito
ring
is p
erfo
rmed
on
a re
gula
r bas
is a
ccor
ding
to
pre-
anno
unce
d pr
oced
ures
and
crit
eria
.1)
Re
gula
r ev
alua
tion
of q
ualit
y an
d ef
fect
s/im
pact
of
serv
ices
pro
vide
d is
car
ried
out a
nd p
ublic
ly a
vaila
ble.
Prac
tice:
1)
CSO
s ar
e no
t sub
ject
of
exce
ssiv
e co
ntro
l.2)
Th
e re
gula
r pu
blic
atio
n on
im
pact
of
serv
ices
is
not
avai
labl
e fo
r th
e pu
blic
. 3)
N
o re
gula
r ev
alua
tions
on
the
impa
ct o
f th
e se
rvic
es a
re
carr
ied
out a
nd p
ublic
ly a
vaila
ble.
Prac
tice:
1)
Cond
uctio
n of
pre
-ann
ounc
ed
mon
itorin
g an
d ev
alua
tion
on th
e im
pact
of
serv
ices
. 2)
CS
Os
and
the
publ
ic s
houl
d be
info
rmed
on
the
resu
lts o
f th
e m
onito
ring
and
eval
uatio
n pe
rfor
med
by
publ
ic a
utho
ritie
s on
ser
vice
del
iver
y.
55
VI. Used Resources and Useful Links
List of legal and strategic documents, reports and analyses used
1. IDM (2014) Bringing ASCS closer to civil society, Policy paper of Institute for Democracy and Mediation, December 2014
2. Directive no. 22 date 19.11.201455 “For the inspection of CSOs from tax au-thorities, aiming to prevent money laundering and financing of terrorism”
3. Decision of Council of Ministers No. 953, date 29.12.20144. Law No.8788, dated 07.05.2001 on “Non-Profit Organizations”5. Law No.8788, dated 07.05.2001 on “Non-Profit Organizations”6. Law no. 92/2013 For some amendments in the law no. 8788, Date 7.5.2001
“on “Non-Profit Organizations”, amended7. Law No. 8773, dated 23.4.2001, “On Assemblies”8. Law 92/2014 Date 24.07.2014 on “VAT in the Republic of Albania”9. Law No. 10093, date 09.03.2009 “For the Organization and Functioning of
Civil Society Support Agency” 10. Law no. 95/2013 For the Approval of the Licensing Agreement for the
National Lottery between the Ministry of Finances, as the authorizing au-thority, and the “OESTERREICHISCHE LOTTERIEN”, GMBH company, through “OLG PROJECT” SHPK
11. Law no. 146/2014 date 30.10.2014 “On Public Notification and Consultation”12. Law No. 119/2014 “On the Right of Information” 13. World Giving Index 2014, A global View of Giving Trend, November 201414. USAID (2014), 2013 CSO Sustainability Index for Central and Eastern Europe
and Eurasia, June 2014.
Useful Links Agency for the Support of Civil Society http://www.amshc.gov.al/ Albanian Parliament http://www.parlament.al/ Delegation of the EU to Albania http://www.delalb.ec.europa.eu/ IADSA http://www.iadsa.info/Ministry of Culture http://www.kultura.gov.al/Open Data Project http://open.data.al/ OSFA http://www.soros.al/ TACSO Albania http://www.tacso.org/
55) Directive no. 22 date 17.11.2014
56
VII. Annex 1
57
CSOs QuestionnaireQUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE MATRIX MONITORING ON ENABLING ENVIRONMENT FOR CIVIL SOCIETY DEVELOPMENT
The purpose of this survey is to assess the implementation of laws, regulations and policies affect civic engagement and environment for CSDev. The survey is a component of a regional assess-ment initiative in the Western Balkans and Turkey. The results of the assessment will be used to develop two annual reports and an annual regional report which will be presented to the European Commission, Brussels. This initiative is funded by the Olof Palme Center, with funding from SIDA and Partnership Program for Civil Society Organisations of the European Union.
All the information gathered are confidential, they will be used for data analysis in the group without reference to any particular institutions case and particular names.
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
Name of the interviewee
Position of the interviewee in the organization
Full name and acronym of the organization
Type of the organizationAssociation Foundation
Center Social Enterprise
Full address of the organization
Telephone and email
58
The field of operation of the organization
(Please check all options that are applicable)
Business Democracy
Woman Culture and Education
Environment Social Services
Youth Health
Other ..............................................................
Year of establishment
Year of registration
Number of employees and involved persons in the organization
Full time _________ Part time _________
Volunteers _________
Annual income of the organization over the last year
Less than 10 000 EUR
From 10,000 to 50,000 EUR
From 50,000 to 100,000 EUR
From 100,000 to 500,000 EUR
From 500,000 to 1,000,000 EUR
Over 1,000,000 EUR
1. BASIC LEGAL GUARANTEES OF FREEDOMS
1.1 How do you assess the state interference in the internal governance and activities of CSOs? (Please rank from 1 to 5, where 1 - Not at all, 2-Little, 3-Somehow 4 - Enough: 5 - Very much)
There is state interference
in the internal governance
of CSOs
Sanctions are applied in rare / extreme cases
The sanctions are proportionate to the nature of the
violation
Sanctions are subject to a
judicial review
There are surveillance practices of
state occupation that impose burdensome
reporting requirements
1
2
3
4
5
Annex 1
59
1.2 Please provide an example for any of the alternatives based on the experience of your organisation ....................................................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................................................
1.3 Does your organization engage in direct economic activities? Yes No
1.4 If Yes, does the regulation for direct economic activities impose administrative difficulties for your organization? Please explain
....................................................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................................................
1.5 How would you rate the freedom that CSO have for providing financial resources from local and foreign donors?
Very difficult Difficult Somehow difficult Easy Very easy
1 2 3 4 5
1.6 If your response is from 1-3, please explain Why?....................................................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................................................
1.7 How would you assess the procedures to receive funds from individuals, corporations and other sources?
Very difficult Difficult Somehow difficult Easy Very easy
1 2 3 4 5
1.8 If your response is from 1-3, please explain Why?....................................................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................................................
60
1.9 How do you assess freedom of peaceful organizing by CSOs? (Please rank from 1 to 5, where 1 - Not at all, 2-Little, 3-Somehow 4 - Enough: 5 - Very much)
The freedom
of assembly
is respected
There are limitations
but they are justified and
the reasons are communicated
in writing
There is use of force exerted by law enforcement
authorities.
In case of contra-protests, the state
facilitates and protects groups to exercise their
right against people who aim to prevent
or distrupt the asambly.
There are cases of freedom of assembly
practiced by CSOs
without prior authorization
Media is present at these
assembly
1
2
3
4
5
1.10 Please provide an example for any of the alternatives based on the experience of your organisation
...................................................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................................................
2. FRAMEWORK FOR CSO FINANCIAL VIABILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
2.1 Do you secure income from the following sources of funding? (Please rank from 1 to 5, where 1 - Not at all, 2-Little, 3-Somehow 4 - Enough: 5 - Very much)
Grants from foreign donors
Grants from Central
Government
Grands from Local
Government
Services offered by
the CSO (economic activity of the CSO)
Public Procurement Donations Volunteer
Work
1
2
3
4
5
Annex 1
61
2.2 Based on the previous Fiscal year, what percentage of the financial resources of your organi-zation has been received from the following sources (please indicate the total percentage in brackets) (please note that the total amount of different financial resources should not exceed 100%)?
• Central state institutions [------ %] • Local state institutions [------ %] • Local private companies [------ %] • Foreign donors [------ %] • Individual local donations [------ %] • Membership fees [------ %] • Tariffs/sale of services [------ %]• Economic activities [------ %]• Other (please explain): [------ %] _______________________ TOTAL [100%]
2.3 How would you assess the tax treatment of the following sources of income? (Please rank from 1 to 5, where 1 - Not at all, 2-Little, 3-Somehow 4 - Enough: 5 - Very much)
Direct or indirect tax on grants is applied
Tax benefits for economic activity are effective and
support CSOs
Sanctions are applicable to passive investments of CSO
(if utilised by CSOs)
1
2
3
4
5
2.4 Have you ever benefited from conditional donations (endowments) as a source of income for your organization?
Yes No
2.5 If your response is “yes”, what is the cost of endowments that enable the generation of income? ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
2.6 What are the tax benefits that you’ll be requesting to support CSOs?
1. .................................................................................................................................................................2. ................................................................................................................................................................3. ................................................................................................................................................................
622.7 How would you assess the availability of public funding (from the state) to support the insti-
tutional development of CSOs? (Please rank from 1 to 5, where 1 - Not at all, 2-Little, 3-Somehow 4 - Enough: 5 - Very much)
Public funding is responds to the needs of the CSO
There are government bodies with a clear mandate for distribution / monitoring public funds
Funding is predictable, and easily identifiable
CSO participation in public funding cycle is transparent
1
2
3
4
5
2.8 What amount of state funding did your organization received in 2013-2014? (State the amount is in Lek) Insert 0 if you have never received state funds. _____________
2.9 What is your assessment on the distribution of public funding to CSOs? (Please rank from 1 to 5, where 1 - Not at all, 2-Little, 3-Somehow 4 - Enough: 5 - Very much)
Information on the procedures for funding and information on funded projects is publicly availble
State bodies follow the procedure and apply it in a harmonized way
The application requirements are too burdensome for CSOs
Decisions on tenders are considered fair and conflict of interest situations are declared in advance
1
2
3
4
5
2.10 Please provide an example for any of the alternatives based on the experience of your organization. ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
2.11 On your assessment how stimulating are governmental policies for employment in the civil society sector?
Not at all stimulating
Somehow stimulating Neutral Stimulating Very stimulating
Annex 1
63
2.12 Are you aware of state programs that enable volunteerism?
Yes No
2.13 If your answer is Yes, please mention it. _________________________________
2.14 How would you assess governmental policies and laws enabling volunteering? (Please rank from 1 to 5, where 1 - Not at all, 2-Little, 3-Somehow 4 - Enough: 5 - Very much)
Incentives and programs are transparent and easily available from the CSO
Administrative procedures for the organizers of voluntary activities are not complicated
There are cases of complaints over restrictions on volunteering
1
2
3
4
5
3. FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICES FOR COOPERATION GOVERNMENT - CSO
3.1 How would you assess the cooperation Government - CSO? ( Please rank from 1 to 5, where 1 - Not at all, 2-Little, 3-Somehow 4 - Enough: 5 - Very much)
CSOs participate in all stages of the development,
implementation and evaluation of strategic
documents dealing with relations State - CSO
Cooperation between the
state and CSOs is improved
The implementation of strategic
documents dealing with relations State - CSO is monitored,
evaluated and reviewed periodically
State policies for cooperation
State - CSOs are based on reliable
data
1
2
3
4
5
3.2 Please provide an example for any of the alternatives based on the experience of your organization. ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
64
3.3 How would you assess the level of involvement of CSOs in decision making?
Very low Low Somehow High Very high
1 2 3 4 5
3.4 If your response is from 1-3, please explain Why?...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
3.5 How would you assess the standards of involvement of CSOs in policy and decision making processes? (Please rank from 1 to 5, where 1 - Not at all, 2-Little, 3-Somehow 4 - Enough: 5 - Very much)
Public inistitutions routinely invite all interested CSOs to comment on poliy /legal initiative at an
early stage
CSOs are provided with adequate information on
the content of the draft documents and details of the consultation with sufficient time to
respond
Written feedback on the results of consultations is made publicly available by
public institutions
The majority of civil servants in charge of drafting public
policies has sucesfully completed the
necessary educational programs/training
1
2
3
4
5
3.6 Please provide an example for any of the alternatives based on the experience of your organization................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
3.7 Please list three criteria that would increase the involvement of CSOs in decision making.
1. .................................................................................................................................................................2. ................................................................................................................................................................3. ................................................................................................................................................................
Annex 1
65
3.8 How do you assess public access to the project - laws and policies?
Very difficult Difficult Somehow difficult Easy Very easy
1 2 3 4 5
3.9 Please list the laws in which you actively participated in 2014 (e-consultations, roundtable, working group, etc.)1. .................................................................................................................................................................2. ................................................................................................................................................................3. ................................................................................................................................................................
3.10 How would you assess the participation of CSOs in the cross – sector bodies?
Very difficult Difficult Somehow difficult Easy Very easy
1 2 3 4 5
3.11 How would you assess the involvement of CSOs in cross-sector bodies? (Please rank from 1 to 5, where 1 - Not at all, 2-Little, 3-Somehow 4 - Enough: 5 - Very much
Advisory bodies on issues relevant
for civil society generally include CSO
representatives
CSO representatives are enabled to freely express
and defend their positions
CSO representatives
are selected through selection
process which are considered
fair and transparent
Participation does prevent CSOs from
using alternative ways of advocacy or promoting alternative
stand-points which are not in line with the position of the
respective body
1
2
3
4
5
3.12 List three criteria that would ensure that partnership to be effective?
1. .................................................................................................................................................................2. ................................................................................................................................................................3. ................................................................................................................................................................
66
Annex 13.13 What are the opportunities of CSOs to compete for state contracts? (Please rank from 1 to 5, where 1 - Not at all, 2-Little, 3-Somehow 4 - Enough: 5 - Very much)
CSOs are able to benefit contract in competition with
other providers
CSOs are involved in all stages of development and
service delivery
In cases where a license is required, the procedures of
taking it are easy
1
2
3
4
5
3.14 Please provide an example for any of the alternatives based on the experience of your organization..................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................
3.15 What is the role of the state in the financing of services provided by CSOs? (Please rank from 1 to 5, where 1 - Not at all, 2-Little, 3-Somehow 4 - Enough: 5 - Very much)
CSOs recipients of funding for services
CSOs receive sufficient funding to cover basic costs of the services they are contracted to provide
Payments are made on time and the funding is
flexible
1
2
3
4
5
3.16 Please provide an example for any of the alternatives based on the experience of your organization..................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................
3.17 How would you assess the procedures for contracting the services of CSOs?
Very difficult Difficult Somehow difficult Easy Very easy
1 2 3 4 5
673.18 If your response is from 1-3, please explain Why? ..................................................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................................................
3.19 List three conditions that would facilitate the contracting of CSO services from the state.
1. .................................................................................................................................................................2. ................................................................................................................................................................3. ................................................................................................................................................................
3.20 How would you assess the process of monitoring of the state structures to services provided by CSOs? (Please rank from 1 to 5, where 1 - Not at all, 2-Little, 3-Somehow 4 - Enough:
5 - Very much)
CSUs are subject to excessive control
Monitoring is performed based on procedures and pre-
announced criteria
Monitoring results are made available to the public
1
2
3
4
5
3.21 Please provide an example for any of the alternatives based on the experience of your organization. ..................................................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................................................
3.22 List three priorities for creating an enable environment for the CSOs activity.
1. .................................................................................................................................................................2. ................................................................................................................................................................3. ................................................................................................................................................................
Thanks for your time and contribution!
68
ISBN: 978-9928-08-176-6
![[Albania] New Albania I.pdf](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/544cfeb4b1af9f710c8b499e/albania-new-albania-ipdf.jpg)
