Sharing Lessons and Comparing the State of Civil Society in Post Communist Europe

8/7/2019 Sharing Lessons and Comparing the State of Civil Society in Post Communist Europe

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sharing-lessons-and-comparing-the-state-of-civil-society-in-post-communist 1/17

“Sharing Lessons and Comparing the State of Civil Society

in Post Communist Europe”

The CIVICUS Civil Society Index Regional Workshop

Villa Čerych, Česká Skalice

Czech Republic

5 -7 April 2006



BackgroundThis document serves as a summary of the main discussions and outcomes of the CSI regionalworkshop “Sharing Lessons and Comparing the State of Civil Society in Post Communist Europe”, that was held in Villa Čerych, Česká Skalice in the Czech Republic from 5th to 7th April2006. The workshop was co-hosted by the Civil Society Development Foundation (NROS), theCSI partner in the Czech Republic. The workshop was funded by the CEE Trust and CIVICUS.

The workshop was attended by ten participants from 9 Post communist CSI countries, namely:Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Georgia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, andSlovenia (See appendix XX for list of participants). The two day workshop utilized a variety ofparticipatory methods to engage with the CSI findings and to stimulate discussions among theparticipants about civil society in the region.

Workshop Objectives1. To discuss and compare the CSI findings and other project insights to create a space for

reflection on the current state of civil society in the region.2. To identify trends and best practices in civil society development that can be replicated in

the region.3. To generate common priority actions and future initiatives for the strengthening of civil

society in the region.4. To provide information and input into the strategic and programme priorities of donors,

CSOs and other stakeholders aiming to strengthen civil society in the region.

Summary of ProceedingsThe following summarizes the main discussion points and outcomes of the CSI regionalworkshop. The summary is structured along the agenda for the event (See appendix XXX forcomplete agenda).

Day 1

After a round of introductions, participants engaged in an individual exercise of identifying theirexpectations and concerns of the workshop. The following expectations and concerns were identified:

Expectations of Workshop Discussion about the results and coordination of research project Steps for the next rounds of CSI in Europe and EU funding More time to discuss about the future Share experience Common strategy for the region Opportunity for comparisons Learn from one another regarding how to overcome problems Recommendations for the report Discuss evaluation

Concerns about Workshop Time



In the session that followed participants updated each other about the progress and status of theCSI project in their countries. Each participant also identified one main highlight and challengeof the project. The following is a summary of the participants’ presentations:

Bulgaria:Project successfully completed in September 2005 and country report already published.Challenges:

Problems with NAG and need for strict criteria to get the NAG to engage more. First draft of the report was completed without a significant revision process Problems with the Media Review, lack of volunteers, no case studies Main problem; we had funding for one year but the project lasted for two years

Positive highlights:

The CSI report has been included into the library of the European Commission During the national workshop a task Force was established by a diverse set of

stakeholders to lobby for the provision of the 1% tax law.

Romania:Project has been completed, pending publication of country report.Challenges:

Human Resources - lost a team member that brought about loss of info and need for

investment in additional human resources Limited resources on civil society in Romania (most of them focused on NGOs only)

Positive highlights: Managed to put together a diverse group of stakeholders (common vision on CS shared

by different groups, such as unions and NGOs); Based on the CSI findings some additional research may be carried out by others (e.g.

Romanian NGO donors forum is thinking of researching impact of donor funding on CS;NGO resource centre is thinking about undertaking a study on CS, especially about thefinancial resources of NGOs, relation with public authorities).

Croatia:Project completed and report has been published electronically on line, CERANEO is still lookingfor publishers for the report.Challenges:

Keep all stakeholders active, especially NAG (maybe pay the NAG for their time); somepolitical authorities rejected our role as contributors to a common strategy for civilsociety.

Positive Highlights: Invited by the assembly of Zagreb to present the report results; CERANEO is facilitating

a dialogue with the city of Zagreb about setting up structures for CS; we believe thatother organizations used our recommendations automatically.

Macedonia:Project is in its final stages and will be completed by end of April



basis for discussions on a common strategy for CS in the country; joined a consortiumfunded by the EU and we could present evidence based on the CSI.

Czech Republic:The CSI project was completed in December 2004 and the report was published electronicallyand in hard copy also.Challenges:

Human Resources (had to finish the project in one year because this was the duration ofour funding); cooperation with academic institutions (due to insider role of some NITmembers); interaction among stakeholders, but CS interaction is not perceived as a

priority anymore; we had to contextualize our project so as to make it more appealing tolocal stakeholders; no problems with NAG (led by prominent figures and this attractedother NAG members); CSE found problems between participatory methodologies andmore traditional techniques; people working on CS research are mostly theoretical andthe RSC convinced the CSE that the CSI methodology was sound enough; face validityof indicators animated debates within the NAG; put fwd recommendations withoutchampions, since NROS didn’t want to take up this role; however somerecommendations have triggered spontaneous follow-ups.

Positive Highlights: A follow-up study based on the CSI findings was conducted about umbrella organizations

by the same author of the CSI report; we could compare our analysis with the JohnHopkins study and the media was interested in the comparative effort to assess thedevelopment of CS; Report became a ‘bible’ for CS students and scholars; CSE was alsoworking on government report and this gave visibility to CSI study.

Poland:The CSI project is about to be completed, the report is in the final editing stages.

Challenges: Promotion of the CSI report will be tricky as we have different reports on CS in Poland

and therefore we will have to find a different angle to promote the CSI report and findingsthrough; changing sources because of political changes, including institutional change;impact of CSI is limited because of political changes and shifting sources of information;combine participatory and more traditional methodologies; lost some gains fromparticipatory methodology because of changes made in the implementation; CSI was tooconcentrated on organizations according to academic we interacted with (especially on‘values’);

Positive Highlights: Upload the report on the web and make it surfable (like Wikipedia); in our report there is

more than the results and it can be used for different purposes; we have a much morethorough understanding of CS.

Slovenia:



Montenegro:A CSI Shortened Assessment Tool (SAT) was conducted in Montenegro and the project isalmost done. The local version will be broader and lots of examples to make it more interestingfor local audience.Challenges:

Lack of experience in this type of research; need for some academic skills; datacollection was hard; interaction between local and foreign research (secondary data); notenough time to select NAG effectively; limited funding (started fundraising too late andthis didn’t allow us to conduct additional research); academic members of NAG were the

most skeptical; time constraints;Positive Highlights:

Important source for CS action and research; no other resources exist thus far; it can beuseful to develop the full CSI: it was good to have a donor (UNDP) as a NAG member.

Georgia:The CSI SAT project was completed; the report is currently being formatted.Challenges:

Adopted a broad definition and then went back to CIVICUS definition (but decided toexclude churches); how to deal with organizations remnant from the socialist era? canthey be treated as honest CS organizations? Difficult to understand CS after the RoseRevolution;

Positive Highlights: Monitoring of Georgia/EU action plans; we want to elaborate on the CSI indicators to

make it more usable and practical (with a view to influencing policy).

In the session that followed, participants spent 15 minutes extracting up to seven strengths and

weaknesses of civil society in their countries from the CSI country reports. On note cardsparticipants wrote down these strengths and weaknesses and pasted it up on wall. They thenengaged in a collective exercise to group these strengths and weaknesses based on the onessighted the most by all countries. The following are the most significant strengths andweaknesses in the region:

CS Weaknesses Count CS Strengths CountLow level of citizen participation 8 Human Resources 6

Private Sector-CS relations 6 Meeting needs of marginalizedgroups

6

Poor networking/Cooperationwithin CS

6 Strong environmental NGOs 5

Lack of Transparency 4 Networking and partnership 4Weak cooperation with state 4 Diversity of sector 3



To start of the day participants engaged in a collective discussion to choose only five priorityweaknesses for civil society in the region. Here they relied on the number of times each

weakness was mentioned but also attempted to choose the most relevant between those thatreceived a similar number of counts. The following are the five priority regional weaknessesthat the group finally agreed to:

Before delving further into the discussions of the weaknesses of civil society in the region,CIVICUS presented its assessment of the most outstanding features for civil society in theregion, based on a cross country analysis of the CSI findings. These findings make the bulk of apaper that ODI has commissioned CIVICUS to write about civil society’s impact on policy issuesin the post communist European countries (see annex XXX for power point presentation).During the discussion of the comparative results participants felt the need to be sensitive tocountry specific conditions and historical backgrounds that may shed light on some of thesimilarities and differences between the countries in the region.

Participants then went on to discuss the causes of the weaknesses identified earlier and tosuggest recommendations from CSI findings and their own experiences to remedy these

weaknesses. The following are the main points of discussion:

Low level of citizen participationCauses:

low trust in society and culture of disengagement; reaction to coerced civic engagement;credibility of the sector affected by scandals and mismanagement; dependence onforeign donors and limited outreach; lack of influential role models and self-confidence;political organizations have taken over the public sphere (representative democracy isnot enough, more need for participatory democracy).

Recommendations: Best promotion of CS results and activities; more visibility for CS; democracy and

participatory methods (since CSOs do not promote themselves and do not addresspressing problems) (In Georgia example: local conflict with government and no civicorganization take on this role which is then captured by political parties and simply use it

Final List of Priority Regional WeaknessesLow level of citizen participationCS relations with other actors (business, state and the media)Poor networking/Cooperation within CSLack of TransparencyFinancial dependence on donors



governance at the local level (Bulgaria: invite around 80 people and talk about budget,civic programmes, it is not mandatory by law) (Macedonia: people who live in buildingsare now expected to establish residents councils, but people are reluctant to getinvolved) (Slovenia: there exist some forums to encourage participatory governance andcivic engagement in local decision-making);

promote an employment policy for NGOs.

CS relations with other actors (business, state and the media)Causes:

poor mediation role for CSOs in society at large; communism destroyed trust and mutualrespect so a generation change is necessary; fragile identity of CS as such and CS is notseen as a visible actor by other role players; limited communication between different

sectors; CSR is a new and not yet up-and-running a phenomenon; institutional rulesshould be in place and enforced by law; CS is not so newsworthy in a media systemdominated by tabloid-type newspapers;

Recommendations: provide news to the media that are appealing and interesting (CZE: there exist examples

of media that are publishing “comics” on CS; Romania: NGOs are training journalists onhow to report on CS issues and draw on CSOs’ expertise to interact with the media).

CS should play a better mediating role in society target business with approaches that make CS sound interesting to private sector. CS should support independent media Code of conducts can benefit CS relations with other sectors and more use of sanctions

to punish those CSOs that do not comply (this would improve CS public image) Utilize EU partnership system to foster interaction between sectors and disburse public

funds; Promote institutions that provide venues for trilateral engagement (the EU is pushing for

these forums, but they might end up affording no significant say to CS); introduces

compacts. CIVICUS should collect information on this and share it with our NCOs. Use VIPs to promote CS and promote partnerships.

Poor networking/Cooperation within CS sectorCauses:

Fierce competition for limited resources; politically divided CS; workloads do not allow forinteraction and mutual understanding; ambitions and rivalries; cooperation is oftenempty, no content-based cooperation; CSOs do not like centralized forms oforganizations (such as umbrella organizations); lack of internal codes for cooperation.

Recommendations: Rules for cooperation in the sector (Czech Republic: it is not possible because the

challenge is daunting and we keep creating rules that cannot be enforced and he refersto the communist tradition to explain this tendency to generate rules that are not enforced



Establish effective instruments for communication (mailing lists, listservs, etc.) Enhance the role of umbrella organizations and issue-based networks (because CSOs

have to have some common grounds to cooperate and agree on actions) Access to information (internet portals, etc.) Publicize positive examples of partnerships Use EU partnership principle to promote cooperation among CS (CZE: used a EU funded

project to conduct a study in 2003).

Lack of TransparencyCauses: Lack of trust and competition for scarce resources; for some CSOs it seems that it pays off notto be transparent; there are few local constituencies; lack of marketing skills that would make

transparency a strength; lack of favorable tax system (especially in Montenegro, where CSOs donot report in order to avoid paying tax); no common understanding of what means to be‘transparent’; limited time to reflect on themselves.

Recommendations: Establish common database with annual reports (but some qualms re: potential state

control over CSOs that want to sign up on this database) Self-regulation Bulgaria: interesting discussion during CSI NW on how to guarantee transparency in the

interaction between state, donors and CS Put together list of requirements/standards for Annual Reports (Romania has a CS gala

that awards the best Annual Report) Create an index of transparency for CSOs Government should provide funding provided that certain transparency standards are

met.

Financial Dependence on Donors

Causes: Lack of domestic (individual and collective) support due to difficult socio-economic

conditions; lack of support from the state; lack of trust affects charitable giving; donors’interest in shaping and influencing civil society in the region; lack of tax exemptions.

Recommendations Favorable tax system; Tax incentives for charitable giving; Strategic proactive planning by CSOs; Bulgaria: conduct an advocacy campaign about how the state is subsidizing CSOs and

whether the process is transparent; Influence donor priorities re: what to fund, and how and why; Social entrepreneurship and service fees (including social economy initiatives, such as

fair trade activities, etc.); Subcontracting government and tenders;



Collect best practices and publicize them so as to reach citizens (perhaps usingspecific media). Romania: there used to be a TV programme ‘Romanian Heart’ oncivil society activities.

Get VIPs involved and create role models. Promote civil education in schools’ syllabus and curricula. Identify CS leaders and profile them publicly to cast more positive light on CS as

a whole Regional project to establish regional standards for transparency Database for annual reports and Award Regional campaign to propose COMPACTS in the countries of the region Project to get CSOs involved in accessing EU structural funds Social entrepreneurship plan

The group was divided into two working groups to devise action plans for 1) Promoting civiceducation in schools and 2) Enhancing transparency within civil society.

Presentation of action plansCivic Education (see power point presentation)

Participants raised doubts re: whether they were the most appropriateorganizations to develop such an action plan. It appeared that such an action plan

should be rather taken forward and carried out by other types of CSOs (morefocused on education).

Transparency Objective: higher level of transparency in order to increase public trust and

confidence in CSOs. Activities

Regional working group summarizing results from CSI re: transparency andconduct a comparative analysis;

Hold national workshops; Common definition of transparency to come out of a regional workshop and

draw out a regional action plan; Lay out criteria in the regional workshop; Analyze best practices to illustrate incentives to be transparent; Study visits to develop skills and exchange views and sharing lessons;

Source of verification: TI Actors: Transparency International + national leading CSOs

Challenges: low rate of response Resources: ~ €100,000 Timeframe: Jan 2007 – Jan 2008

Another recommendation was made by the participant from Poland with regards to adopting theCSI tool for the assessment of civil society on the local level. This would involve simplifying thetool and maybe cutting down on the number of indicators It would be used as a self



DAY 3

The first session of the day attempted to solicit the participants’ feedback about the early signsof impact of the CSI in their countries. By early signs of impact we mean, anything that the CSIproject triggered in the country. The following are the early signs of impact mentioned by theCSI partners in the region:

Slovenia:- media reporting during NW and when draft report was published (4-5 articles, radio

interview, short TV item)- two projects were suggested to Ministry based on CSI: 1) open budget (how to include

CS stakeholders in influencing and monitoring budget at local/national level), 2)transparency within CS

- knowledge contained in CSI report (NAG members are very interested)- cooperation with Ministry for Public Administration re: NW; report on NW is available at

Ministry’s website

Poland:

- internet panel was a new idea, introduced as part of the CSI: 300 stakeholders took part;KLON aims to continue working with the panel asking about current problems/issues andalso to continue asking the same questions (opinion barometer among CS leaders)

- moving from thinking about NGO sector to thinking about civil society- the 4 dimensions of the Diamond influence thinking and work of the organization- CS strategy was partially inspired by CSI- Forum of NG initiatives was influenced by CSI findings (similar to NW)- idea of adapting CSI to implement it at local level- cooperation with NROS on CSI research- report as a source of data and recommendations

Czech Republic:- studies of umbrella orgs as inspired by CSI- CSI report main reference source at Charles Univ- CEE trust used CSI report to identify ‘white spots’ i.e. undiscovered issues within CS- Essays and paper of foreign students and authors often use CSI report- Awareness that CS is not just NGOs was created among NGOs

- CSI was seen as a follow up study to JHU, i.e. established tradition of conducting a largestudy every 4-5 years

- students, worked on case studies, developed them in MA thesis- several articles were published- various interviews were given on TV / radio

Georgia: too early to talk about impact since CSI SAT report is not finished



- raised awareness about relevance of CS influence on national budget- produced respected source of information, which is widely used (CERANEO is counting

the hits on website)- used for university courses on CS- got invitation from Assembly of City of Zagreb and city administration to facilitate the

process of developing a City Foundation on Dev of CS- Ministry for Social Care invited CERANEO because the saw CSI as a good basis.

CERANEO will organize a larger conference on social service CSOs and social workersre: future development of social policies

Bulgaria:- established contacts and cooperation with other NGOs in the region, e.g. FDSC, PIC and

MCIC- Report is source for other publications- CSI Report is basis for Code of Conduct- new partnerships among local NGOs developed as an outcome of RSCs- task force to advocate for greater transparency of govt spending on CS is still in

existence

Macedonia:- CSI helped to prioritize and have proofs/evidence to justify key activities- EU funded project and managed by Europ Agency for Reconstruction, MCIC is providing

techn assistance to Govt Unit on CS with 4 components which are in line with CSIfindings: 1) developing govt strategy for cooperation with CS; 2) set up transparentcriteria for state financing of CSOs, 3) improvement of visibility of CS Unit within govt, 4)capacity building of public administration

- CSI helped to prioritize the work of Civic Platform and what methods to use; since CivicPlatform members were involved, it was easier to move forward and agree

- new surveys and studies will be conducted (e.g survey on philanthropy, public trust,

networking, umbrella orgs, CS perception by public, internal democracy practices)- for many MCIC activities, from now on, first a research will be conducted and then the

activity will be planned- CSI had impact on new MCIC strategy, part. on strategy on CS, but also compared CS

data with regional GDP/HDI and other issues and influenced rural dev strategy- MCIC will move more towards advocacy and training; CSI will help to be an evidence-

based advocate- every 2nd year, a directory of CSOs is published; CSI helped to structure and analyse

data on project activities of CSOs- CSI improved skills of staff re: use of technical software and data analysis and writing

skills- CSI forced CSOs to face reality and helped to broke down perceptions (e.g. media

review showed more positive results than originally thought)- MCIC used CSI community survey within MCIC staff and found that only a few

volunteered, donated etc.



justification in negotiations to include NGOs in the Economic and Social Committee bythe govt.

- CSI prompted interest by stakeholders/NAG (e.g Centras, Aid-ONG, Provob) in furtherresearch to fill gaps that were identified during the CSI process. FDSC is part and seeks

to influence the scope of these studies and use the information- using CSI in advocacy initiatives (World Learning is interested in building NGO capacities

for advocacy), initiated by lack of CS influence on public policies- based on CSI findings, FDSC is interested in developing women’s NGO sector- revelation that consumer protection associations play an important role in CS

Montenegro: too early to say- so far, CSI has had strong impact on NIT and NAG, raised many questions, introduced

methodology/approach to look at CS; led to identification on CS problems and introduceda tool to self-diagnosis and reflect, also on their own work; govt representative in NAGhas subsequently become more active and is pushing for developing a strategy betweengovt and CS; media rep (from newspaper with least coverage of CS) has become morefamiliar with CS and more attention is given to CS

- CSI has accumulated lots of data in a single place

In the next session, using flip charts on the wall, participants were asked to reflect on thepotential uses and improvement to the CSI for the future. The following was identified by theparticipants:

1. Start from the local level and involve more individual citizens in the process (bring itcloser to the local community and regional levels to involved

2. Implement CSI for different sectors of civil society3. Feedback report about CSI results in the region4. Involve students and young activists in the project5. CS information system

6. Collect share information on CS on an ongoing basis7. Analyze CSI data to learn about the dynamics of CS8. CS monthly bulletin or regional level9. Use CSI to influence donors program priorities10. Review scoring methodology11. Reduce number of indicators12. Implement index every 2 or 3 years at national level13. Be more flexible regarding methodology i.e. reduce the number of primary researches

(do not conduct all of them)14. The group is keen to keep the overall framework as is, however they are also aware ofthe importance of capturing the reality of CS on country level and that comparability isnot necessarily the ultimate aim. There should be a balance between hard data (that arequantitative) and qualitative information.

15. Keep the framework the same to make sure that comparing results within country overthe years is achievable



24. Inspiration for thematic working groups (working on recommendations)25. The organization of knowledge on CS26. Division between “hard” and “perception” based data27. Further develop recommendation down to concrete programs and initiatives

28. Elaborate CS barometer more simple and more frequent that could be the basis for a TVshow

29. Use methodology (different methods) to measure/follow up/monitor the CS developmenton an annual base

30. Develop “popular” annual report for public on “the state of civil society” around the world31. Annex some more qualitative data to the CSI to make it more interesting for the general

public and the media32. Involve more academic institutions in the next phase of implementing the CSI in

collaboration with CSI33. To assess impact, it might be helpful for the next phase to use focus groups withpoliticians

34. Use the NAG members as a permanent council on civil society35. Add more case studies and qualitative information to the CSI36. Utilize the CSI findings for other products besides the country report.

The final session of the workshop included a presentation by the CIVICUS team about the futureof the project. The following are the main points of discussion:

ICSI Workshop: The International CSI (ICSI) workshop will take place from 19th to 21st inGlasgow, Scotland prior to the CIVICUS World Assembly.

Publications: The Global Report on the State of Civil Society will be published byKumarian Press, it is divided into two volumes. Volume one includes country profiles thatsummarizes the main findings of the CSI country reports. Volume two is a comparativevolume utilizing the CSI data.

External Evaluation: INTRAC has been commissioned to conduct an external evaluation

of the CIVICUS implementation of this phase of the project. NCOs will be contacted fortheir feedback.

Next Phase: Pending positive results of the evaluation the next phase maybe launched in2007.

A written evaluation was administered and a final reflective verbal evaluation was also carriedout. Ten participants filed out the evaluation forms. The following table captures the results ofthe evaluation:

Evaluation Questions Participants Responses1. Were the objectives of the workshop

achieved? If not please explain. (Pleaserefer to objectives of the workshop)

- Yes, fully (6 responses)Some comments from respondents:

“I especially liked the Action planning exercise” “We discussed and compared findings and

d i i i ”



expectations/concerns flip charts) partly addressed and give reasons.Some comments from respondents:“Some more concerns about methodology on the level of findings and opinion of NAG

people should be put clearly into the report” “not so satisfied with the exchange of experiences” “My main concern is that it will be difficult to keep the group together in the coming months” “My expectations were addressed” “More or less, I expected more discussion

about future or the prospect, I hope we will manage to cooperate via email and in ICSI workshop”

3. What aspects of the workshop didyou find most useful?

“The final session on the additional ideas to improve the CSI” (4 responses) “Action planning exercise” (2 responses) “Strengths/weaknesses and recommendations” (2 responses) “Exchange of information and opinions on same aspects (dimensions, research methodology) with other countries” (3responses)“Early signs of impact” (1 response) “Presentation of key findings” (1 response)

4. What aspects of the workshop didyou find least useful?

“Action planning” (4 response) “Impacts” (1 response)“Identifying recommendations” (1response)

5. Do you have any recommendationsfor the improvement of such regionalworkshops organized by CIVICUS in thefuture?

“Prepare recent publications and reports on topic we are dealing with” “The workshop should be more interactive,include time limitations during speeches; try to make summaries after the respective parts; in Glasgow include in the groups moderators to generate the discussions” “To have more time to exchange experiences” (2 responses) “more comparative debates of particular findings”



Annex 1: Participants Contact List

Country NCO Name Email Address

Bulgaria Balkan Assist Association Diana Andreeva [email protected]

Croatia Centre for Development of Non-Profit Organisations

Gojko Bezovan [email protected]

CzechRepublic

Civil Society DevelopmentFoundation

David Stulik [email protected]

Georgia Centre for Training andConsultancy

Paata Gurgenidze [email protected]

Macedonia Macedonian Center forInternational Cooperation

Saso Klekovski [email protected]

Macedonia Macedonian Center forInternational Cooperation

Daniela Stojanova [email protected]

Montenegro Center for Development ofNGOs

Daliborka Uljarevic [email protected]

Poland KLON/JAWOR Association Marta Gumkowska [email protected] Romania Civil Society Development

Foundation RomaniaValentin Burada [email protected]

Slovenia Legal Information Centre forNGOs

Matej Verbajs [email protected]



Annex 2: CIVICUS Civil Society Index CEE Regional Workshop 2006Wednesday 5 th – Friday 7 th April 2006

Time Session DescriptionDay 1

13:00-14:00 Introductions, workshop objectives, agendaand House keeping issues

- Participants and facilitators introduce themselves- Objectives of workshop- Expectations of participants- Logistical issues

14:00 – 15:00 CSI project update per country Participants to reflect on:- Current project status

- Main challenge for project- Main positive result

15:00 – 15:30 Presentation of key findings - CIVICUS presents key findings of CSI project in theregion

15:30 – 16:00 Individual preparation - Participants look at findings and extract strengthsand weaknesses of civil society in their country.(using cards to note down up to seven S & W)

16:00 – 16:30 Break16:30 – 18:00 Plenary to discuss individual thoughts - Review overall picture and add missing (15 minutes)

- Start a discussion to identify the five most relevantstrengths and weaknesses for the whole region

- Identify potential causes for these S and W in anattempt to share lessons

Day 2 9:00 – 9:30 Participants match country report

recommendations with weakness- Each country participant takes 2 minutes to present

recommendations per weakness identified the

previous day (half an hour per weakness)9:30 – 10:30 Quick presentation of recommendations

based on country reports per weakness- In group look at recommendations and add ones

that have not been mentioned in country reports,clarify and delete any that are not relevant

10:30 – 11:00 Break11:00 – 12:30 Cont. Quick presentations of

recommendations

12:30 – 13:30 Lunch



CSI Regional Workshop - Česká Skalice, Czech Republic 1

13:30 – 15:00 Action planning - In pairs work out practical frameworks tooperationalize these recommendations one groupper weakness. Who? Where? What? Etc.

15:00 – 15:30 Break

15:30 – 18:00 Report back and group respondentfeedback

- Presentation of action plans and discussions withinthe group

Day 3 9:00- 9:45 Action planning follow up - Identify champions to take forward the action plans

identified the past day9:45 -10:30 CSI signs of impact - Participants identify signs of impact past and current

at country as well as regional level

10:30 – 11:00 Break11:00 -12:00 Potential use of CSI project/Next steps - How can we further use and utilize the CSI project.

Future activities relating to the CSI.12:00 -1:00 CIVICUS plans for the future, Evaluation of

workshop- International CSI workshop in Glasgow, Scotland- CIVICUS CSI publications

1:00 – 2:00 Lunch

Sharing Lessons and Comparing the State of Civil Society in Post Communist Europe

Documents

Transcript of Sharing Lessons and Comparing the State of Civil Society in Post Communist Europe