What we and other organizations in Kosovo do is focusing on our common interests and how we can cooperate with others in the region to achieve common goals. At the end of the day, our societies are so similar that those are far more usual than most people realize, but they are there once you look at the facts and figures.

Kosovo signed the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the EU in 2015, which represented a major step in the EU accession process of Kosovo. How would you assess Kosovo’s progress since then?

Limited. The Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) was supposed to represent a turning point for Kosovo, the first binding, contractual agreement with the EU. It was expected to show the progress and matureness of the youngest state in Europe, but it showed it shortcomings instead.

To expedite implementation, the EU and the Kosovar government agreed on a European Reform Agenda (ERA), an exhaustive list of goals to achieve by the end of 2017. According to our latest report, the level of success in March 2018 was a notorious 38%. To some extent, since there is nowhere else to go, our politicians have accommodated to this situation, and they are in no hurry to move forward. At this pace it will take a decade to make the Agreement fully functional; while the economy remains stagnant and the opportunity slowly slips through our fingers.

An enhanced inter-institutional cooperation and a stronger commitment by all relevant stakeholders in order to improve the performance in achieving the objectives deriving from the SAA is crucial. The government should prioritize tasks undertaken by signing this agreement, in order to achieve proper progress and implement the necessary reforms.

One of the conditions for visa liberalisation for Kosovo was signing a demarcation agreement with Montenegro, which came into force this month. Do you expect some development of this process in the following period?

 At this point, I am a bit sceptical about the issue. The ball is totally in the EU’s court and has been for some time now, but the EU is not united regarding the Western Balkans. The decision regarding the visa has been stalled in the Parliament since September 2016. There is no date to send it to the plenary, and that with the recommendation of the Commission and the endorsement of LIBE!  At the end of the day, it is an internal matter in which our influence is only limited. Kosovo has done its part as, and now it is waiting for the EU to reciprocate.

 

It has been confirmed that the EU will not allow accession of the countries that have bilateral disputes, hence greater cooperation between the Western Balkan states in resolving these disputes is expected. In what way can CSOs speed up this process and contribute to regional reconciliation?

Our role is that of a facilitator, we build bridges between our societies. There is still a substantial animosity towards each other in the region, and people tend to remain in a national, or even nationalistic mindset.

What we and other organizations in Kosovo do is focusing on our common interests and how we can cooperate with others in the region to achieve common goals. At the end of the day, our societies are so similar that those are far more usual than most people realize, but they are there once you look at the facts and figures. Admittedly, we can only push with so much strength, but every contribution counts.

What do you consider to be the biggest challenge civil society in Kosovo is facing? What is the impact of the GLPS?

Kosovo, fortunately, has one of the best environments in the region for the civil society to act. Unlike in some of our neighbours, public institutions in Kosovo have developed a high level of tolerance to criticism and discussion, even though sometimes they complain that is not as constructive as they would like. On the other hand, there is still a very primary culture of activism, and most people outside of the institutions and certain limited groups fail to see the benefits of an active civil society. That substantially complicates outreach and ensuring a sustainable source of funding, but we have learned to cope with it through the years.

In fact, our experience is our greatest asset. GLPS is one of the oldest active organisations in Pristina, with more than a decade of analysis and advocacy on our shoulders. That entails a substantial brand recognition and reputation that has allowed us to push for some substantial policies along the years. The current framework for political party financing originated from our recommendations and lobbying, and lately, we have been very active in the field of disciplinary responsibility for judges and prosecutors, among others.

The GLPS is a member of the regional Think for Europe Network (TEN). How would you assess the significance of TEN’s work for the improvement and promotion of regional research? Can the added value of regional CSO networking serve as a good example for cooperation to the Western Balkan states?

Think for Europe Network represents one of the most excellent examples of Civil Society cooperation in the region, in many ways. First, under this umbrella, our organizations have been able to produce comprehensive and independent regional research and comparative analysis for some of the most pressing issues and common challenges of the region. Second, we have been very successful in further advocating our findings and recommendations either in local or regional context. It must be noted that the impact through the network has been tremendous thus far and the success was recognized beyond the region, by European and other renowned institutions.

On another note, being part of a credible regional network, such as TEN, has supported our member organisations to further sustain our credible image in the region and beyond, by regularly producing joint evidence-based policy research and propose concrete solutions for numerous policies currently being implemented in the region. The scope of research that TEN employs contribute towards some of the main policy requirements set out in the EU perspective agenda of the Western Balkan countries including Public Administration Reform and Rule of Law, amongst many others. To conclude, TEN has also enabled an enhanced cooperation among some of the leading organizations of the region and as a result, helped boost the role of civil society beyond their respective countries.

The GLPS also participates in the regional WeBER Project, which provided funding to four organisations for implementation of their public reform projects. Could you tell us something more about the results of these projects? What would you single out to be the biggest contribution and impact of the WeBER project in Kosovo?

As we are entering the final phase of the WeBER project, we must conclude that the impact that WeBER reached is remarkable and we are proud to have served as a partner for Kosovo. Public Administration Reform remains one of the key priorities towards the EU integration process of the Western Balkans, and commitment towards progress in implementing PAR is being reiterated regularly by the EU representatives.

As for Kosovo, the impact of WeBER project is manifested in multiple ways. First and most important, WeBER has enabled an increased inclusion and impact of Civil Society in monitoring the PAR, which has been almost absent for many years with only a few organizations directly engaged on this matter. Second, through WeBER National Working Group, we have been able to significantly increase the capacities of CSOs – particularly those working at local level – to monitor and engage with responsible institutions in implementing the PAR and further advocating for a proactive approach on this issue.  Third, through WeBER we have been able to further enhance our cooperation with all relevant institutions dealing with PAR, provide concrete feedback deriving from an indicator-based PAR Monitoring Methodology as well as provide a regional perspective on the implementation of PAR, aiming to stimulate peer-pressure on the side of our government institutions.

 

 

The Fourth WeBER Platform meeting was held on 19th of June 2018, as a Video teleconference meeting (VTC), organised in the WeBER partners’ premises in each country.

The event gathered CSO members of the WeBER Platform, representatives of national authorities in charge of PAR (associates of the Project), as well as, the Regional School of Public Administration – ReSPArepresentative.

The first part of the meeting served to update the participants about new finalised indicators and ongoing monitoring activities, but also to present findings of the WeBER survey of civil servants implemented in coordination with the SIGMA/OECD. Discussion on the survey results was focused on state of (de)politicisation in the Western Balkan countries.

This meeting provided an opportunity for drawing conclusions from National Working Group meetings, that were held in previous weeks in all six countries, and to discuss priorities, concerns and challenges communicated by local civil society organisations.

The agenda of the meeting was also inclusive of a brief discussion about the final conference of the WeBER Project, scheduled for 25 – 26 September 2018. Role and contribution of the Platform members pertaining to this event were announced and addressed. The WeBER Platform members also discussed current state of play of the PAR Resource Centre and gave ideas for making it a living database, in order to make it more useful to the civil society organisations across the Western Balkans.

WeBER research team attended the Fourth WeBER Researchers’ Workshop on 29th and 30th May 2018 in Budva, Montenegro.

The WS was hosted and organised by the Institute Alternative (IA), WeBER partner organisation from Podgorica, Montenegro. During both days of the WS, researchers intensively worked on finalising the monitoring process and fine-tuning of the results. One session of the event was dedicated to planning of the First WeBER Regional Conference to be held on 25 – 26 September in Belgrade, where the team effort was employed in order to produce the conference concept and draft agenda. The team concluded the WS by agreeing on detailed plan and schedule of the remaining work, to be implemented in subsequent months.

Montenegro is one of the countries that have made great progress in the EU accession process. Recently published EU Enlargement Strategy for the Western Balkans has also recognised this fact. Do you agree with this assessment? Would you describe the pace of Montenegro’s negotiating process as satisfactory?

Accolades for the progress, as well as the persistent emphasis on having assumed the “leadership in the region”, fail to motivate the authorities to do more and to do better. They also neither strengthen nor meaningfully include civil society, media and democratic opposition interested in reforms. Citizens are unable to perceive the progress in curbing the entanglement of public and ruling party’s interests, nor in the efforts of dismantling the links with organised crime and corruption at all government levels. Weak and politicised institutions, impunity for the corrupted officials and misuse of public funds, state interference into media market, jeopardizing the independence of public broadcaster feat by the ruling Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS), hostile actions towards critically oriented CSOs and targeting their leaders – all of these issues are still existent and persistent in Montenegro, Western Balkans EU accession “frontrunner”?

Institute Alternative (IA) is a think tank that has been following the process of EU integration of Montenegro. How has the role of civil society changed in the past 11 years? Is the civil society more included in this process now than it was at its beginning?

Along the path to European integration, civil society has been adapting to current issues and tasks, building capacities for monitoring complex negotiating chapters. However, although often praised, formal participation of CSOs in negotiating groups has not provided significant contribution nor it has ensured greater influence of CSOs on key documents. Following the adoption of Negotiating Positions, the negotiating groups have mainly turned passive. Numerous negotiating groups have not met in years, and it was only last year when the measures for 17 negotiating chapters were published on the CSO’s request.  The exception are the meetings of the Negotiating Group for the Chapter 23, whereas there is an obligation of delivering semi-annual reports on the action plans implementation. However, the substantive dialogue on burning issues is still lacking. Key discussions are held outside negotiating groups, within the processes of drafting concrete laws and strategies, but also via public and other types of discussion between the government and civil society.

What are the biggest challenges that civil society in Montenegro has faced since the beginning of the EU integration process? What obstacles has your organisation been forced to overcome?

Critically-oriented CSOs and independent media provide a key incentive and contribution to reforms in the areas of rule of law, anti-corruption and public administration reform. At the same time, we are confronted with different types of resistance and the pressure coming from those who do not benefit from the reform process – from unwillingness of the state to support our efforts as legitimate, to disputing and discrediting by various means. In spite of everything, we keep on striving to offer our full contribution in various fora where a dialogue on the quality of laws and policies adopted by the Government and in the Parliament are being conducted. We are exerting influence by placing important topics on the media’s agenda, thus ensuring public dialogue is held on them.

IA is a member of the regional Think for Europe Network (TEN) and one of the key partners in the regional WeBER Project. What are current WeBER Project activities being implemented in Montenegro?

At the moment, we are focused on completing research for the regional PAR Monitor. It is a very demanding task, as we have set high standards with our PAR Monitor Methodology, and now we are combining multiple research methods – surveys (public perception survey, surveys for civil servants and civil society representatives), focus groups, interviews, FOI requests, desk research – to obtain answers to the questions that measure the real extent of the public administration reform  process.

Additionally, our grantees are finalising their projects, providing an insight into developments of public administration reform at the local level.

What are the most significant ongoing projects Institute Alternative is implementing? What subject are those projects focused on and why those particular subjects?

Our key initiatives are focused on the public administration reform process in Montenegro, as well as on one of its key component – Public Finance Management Reform Programme. We are trying to clarify what way the mechanisms for managing public money are being reformed, if at all, and, at the same time, raise awareness of the Government commitments among the public.

We are increasingly cooperating with other CSOs in the country, seeking to garner interests in these topics, traditionally not in the focus of CSOs, as well as with the investigative journalists, trying to come up with a way of communicating our findings and the results obtained, as well as policy work, in a way that would appeal to the general public and interest the citizens.

*This interview is produced as a part of the fifth issue of the TEN Newsletter.