this project is funded by the european union. tacso regional office potoklinica 16 71 000 sarajevo...

This project is funded by the European Union.

TACSO Regional Office Potoklinica 16 71 000 Sarajevo t: +387 33 532 757 f: +387 33 532 757 e-mail: [email protected]

Project Implemented by Consortium led by FCG SIPU International AB Sweden

EU Guidelines for the Support to Civil Society in the Enlargement Countries 2104-2020

Updated version, April, 2015

Process of updating the guidelines• Benchmarks and targets prepared in December 2014• National mid-scale workshops (December 2014 – March 2015):

national targets set, comments to benchmarks and targets• Working group, March 2015 – review of reports from mid-scale

workshops, proposal for the adaptation of the Guidelines (due to the lack of baseline, lack of data on the national level, better harmonization between indicators and benchmarks)• Guidelines updated version prepared in April 2015 (all changes

marked)




Result 1, objective 1, benchmark 1.1.a• First benchmark and target moved from previous 1.1.b to 1.1.a to be more in

line with the indicator (no change in the text as such)• Second benchmark & target: slight revision of the text - now they address only

gaps in legislation and implementation that need to be identified (not the abolishment of the gaps since this is part of the implementation = 1.1.b). The target serves as the baseline for the target under 1.1.b.

• To keep the comparison between the countries, a common reference document needs to be used – according to what we identify the gaps. Proposed reference point: standards from BCSDN monitoring matrix (added as appendix to the Guidelines)




Result 1, objective 1, benchmark 1.1.b• Benchmarks and targets adjusted to address the adoption of the

relevant legislation, as well as its implementation• Benchmark for the adoption of legislation: Gaps in legislation and

policy framework are decreased for 90 %, NT: Gaps in legislation and policy framework are decreased for __ %. (as we identified concrete gaps under 1.1.a, measuring of their decrease is not a problem any more)• Benchmark for implementation: Legislation and policy framework are

fully implemented, NT: Implementation gaps are decreased for __ %.




Result 1, objective 2, benchmark 1.2.a• Benchmark and target changed – now they measure % of all

employed (and not the % of active population = employed + registered unemployed) that work in CSO sector• Benchmark: 6 % of active work population is employed in CSO sector,

NT: ___ % of active work population is employed in CSO sector• Note: the target is not internationally comparable, since this is not

measured on the global level




Result 1, objective 2, benchmark 1.2.b• Indicator slightly changed – to measure number of volunteers in the

CSO sector as a whole and not per type of CSO. Due to the lack of data, benchmark and target were changed to measure increase in number of volunteers (and not the volunteers‘ contribution to GDP)• Benchmark: Number of volunteers in CSOs is increased for 50 %, NT:

Number of volunteers in CSOs is increased for __ %.• Note: in the countries with the legal definition (and potential

registration) of volunteers, only „official“ number of volunteers should be used




Result 1, objective 3, benchmark 1.3.aDue to many debates on this topic on the mid-scale workshop the characteristic „receive financial support“ was deleted from the definition of the grass-roots in the benchmark




Result 2, objective 2, benchmark 2.2.a• To better address the indicator (not just the quality, but also the

applicability of the tax incentives legislation), additional benchmark and target were added to measure the donation practices• Benchmark: 60 % of corporations and 60 % of individuals donate to

CSOs, NT: __ % of corporations and __ % individuals donate to CSOs.




Result 2, objective 4, benchmark 2.4.a• Indicator changed (previous indicator did not take into account the

quality of the project proposals): Share of public funding in the annual CSO income.• Benchmark: 58 % of CSO annual income is derived from public

sources, NT: __ % of CSO annual income is derived from public sources.• Note: Public sources are sources of the national, regional and local

government




Result 3, objective 1, benchmark 3.1.b• Slight change in the text of the target: „body“ on the ministerial level

was replaced with „contact point“ with continuous and constructive cooperation• Although the definition of the ministerial body was provided, there

was a lot of confusion among participants of the mid-scale workshops




Result 4, objective 1, benchmark 4.1.a• Benchmark and target narrowed to CSOs that have a web page, since

the web page is the most common (and cheap) way for publishing information about organisations• Benchmark: 80 % of CSOs, which have a web page, regularly publish

and updates their governance structure and internal documents (statutes, codes of conduct etc.), NT: __ % of CSOs, which have a web page, regularly publish and updates their governance structure and internal documents (statutes, codes of conduct etc.)




Result 4, objective 2, benchmark 4.2.a• Benchmarks and targets changed to correspond with the baseline

survey (for the previous benchmark there was no baseline)• Benchmark: 80 % of surveyed trust to NGOs in their country, NT: __ %

of surveyed trust to NGOs in their country• Benchmark: 80 % of the general population believes that NGOs

support dealing with problems in their country, NT: __ % of the general population believes that NGOs support dealing with problems in their country




Result 4, objective 4, benchmark 4.4.a• Due to the confusion regarding public benefit activities, this reference

was deleted from the text (now we measure all CSOs)• Benchmark: 80 % CSOs monitor and evaluate their projects and

programmes using baselines and quality indicators, NT: __ % of CSOs monitor and evaluate their projects and programmes using baselines and quality indicators




Result 5, objective 1, benchmark 5.1.a• Additional benchmark and target added to measure the share of all

CSOs that have strategic plans (previously the focus was only on the professional CSOs)• Benchmark: 50 % of CSOs develop strategic plans, including human

resources development activities, in order to attract and retain talent, NT: __ % of CSOs develop strategic plans, including human resources development activities




Result 5, objective 2, benchmark 5.2.a• The text of the B & NT slightly changed to be more clear that all CSOs

that are involved in advocacy are measured (and not only advocacy CSOs per se)• Benchmark: 80 % of CSOs involved in advocacy use adequate

argumentation and analysis for achieving advocacy goals, NT: __ % of CSOs involved in advocacy use adequate argumentation and analysis for achieving advocacy goals




Result 6, objective 1, benchmark 6.1.a• Benchmark and target added to measure whether CSOs are mission

or donor driven (in accordance to the baseline survey), since the initial B & NT measure only the ability of CSOs to fundraise for the implementation of their strategic plans• Benchmark: 80 % of CSOs that have a strategic plan mainly collect

funds in line with their strategic plan, NT: __ % of CSOs that have a strategic plan mainly collect funds in line with their strategic plan




Result 6, objective 2, benchmark 6.2.a• Benchmark and target changed in accordance to the baseline survey• Benchmark: Sources of income of 80 % of CSOs are derived from 3

different sources, out of which none of the sources constitutes more than 50 % of the CSO’s income, NT: Sources of income of __ % of CSOs are derived from 3 different sources, out of which none of the sources constitutes more than 50 % of the CSO’s income.• Note: sources are grouped as to the survey questionnaire (1 group = 1

sources of funding): 1. government/ministries/state administration, 2. local and/or regional administration, 3. EU funds, 4. other foreign private or public sources, 5. members, 6. citizens, 7. private companies, 8. public companies

[Aleksandra: national consultation Serbia]




Instructions for the group work• A long process is already behind us (there is no such thing as a perfect

matrix, but we need to complete it at some point), have in mind: Guidelines are not the aim, but a tool!• It is difficult to agree on the regionally comparable indicators, one

needs to compromise (+ you can add specific additional national targets, while keeping the regional)




Instructions for the group work• Discussions will take place among participants around the table• Already placed at mixed groups (country, participation in the

Guidelines process)• Designate person who will report at the end of the day• Focus on the proposed modification and on additional open questions

(help each other out – did you have similar dilemma in your country? How did you solve it? Maybe what seems as an open question, can be solved with the help of the others.)• 2 flipcharts: 1 for proposals, 1 for remaining open questions




Table discussions• Briefly introduce yourself, and briefly describe your role and your

perspective in relation to the EU guidelines and national consultation (enabling environment and CSO Capacities) [up to 15’ max in total] • Do the suggested modifications provide solution for the challenges

you had? If not, please propose other solution.• Have you handled challenges differently than what was presented?

How?• Are there still opened questions/challenges that need to be

addressed?




Reporting back• Do you agree with suggested modifications? FLIPCHART 1 (proposals):• If not, what would you modified differently?• What do you think was addressed better during national consultations for

countries seating at your table then what was suggested? FLIPCHART 2 (open questions):• What are additional opened questions you were faced with, but were not

addressed by suggested modifications?

We will take notes and try to come up with suggestions on possible actions during the morning recap tomorrow!




this project is funded by the european union. tacso regional office potoklinica 16 71 000 sarajevo...

Documents

implementation gaps

european union

sarajevo t

suchsecond benchmark

adoption of legislation

concrete gaps

relevant legislation

afirst benchmark