CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANISATIONS’ INVOLVEMENT IN DRAFTING, IMPLEMENTING AND MONITORING ANTICORRUPTION POLICIES IN ROMANIA Assessment Report September 2013

1

This report assesses the current situation of civil society organisation’s (CSOs) involvement in Romanian anticorruption policies. An overview is provided of the way in which CSOs have developed over the years and how their cooperation on anticorruption policies with state institutions has evolved. The analysis departs from an assessment of the existing programs and policies related to anticorruption within state institutions, and whether there is an integrated approach to anticorruption that creates a favourable environment for civic participation. Our effort should contribute to a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the joint initiatives of citizens (or CSOs) in fighting corruption in Romania and to enable the development of a vision of how citizens can collaborate more efficiently to fight corruption at all levels of government. The analysis is based on desktop research, as well as a survey and consultations with institutional and civil society actors. The authors would like to thank our project partners from Romania for their contribution to the preparation of this publication: Anticorruption General Directorate, Pro Democracy Association, Freedom House, Center for Independent Journalism, Association for Implementing Democracy, and the Institute for Public Policies. Contributors: Rositsa Dzhekova, Center for the Study of Democracy, Sofia, Bulgaria Septimius Parvu, Expert Forum, Bucharest, Romania Michel van Hulten, Saxion University, Enschede, the Netherlands Willeke Slingerland, Saxion University, Enschede, the Netherlands Maurits Beltgens, Center for the Study of Democracy, Sofia, Bulgaria Editor: Michel van Hulten, Saxion University, Enschede, the Netherlands

This report has been published within project HOME/ISEC/AG/ FINEC/4000002579 Development of the civil society involvement in drafting, implementing and assessing anticorruption policies, with the financial support of the Prevention of and Fight against Crime Programme European Commission – Directorate-General Home Affairs. “This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the European Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.” ISBN: 978-606-26-0091-4

2

CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................ 5 Governmental institutions ............................................................................................. 5 Non-governmental organisations .................................................................................. 5 International institutions and organisations................................................................... 6 Other abbreviations ....................................................................................................... 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................. 7 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 9 About this report............................................................................................................ 9 Overview/general considerations .................................................................................. 9 Scope of the report ........................................................................................................ 9 Purpose of the report ..................................................................................................... 9 Methodology ............................................................................................................... 10 Structure of the report.................................................................................................. 11 I. BACKGROUND: CORRUPTION AND ANTICORRUPTION IN ROMANIA..................................................................................................................... 13 1.1. Level and nature of corruption in Romania.......................................................... 15 1.2. Legislative framework in the field of anticorruption ........................................... 19 1.3. Legal and policy framework for transparency and access to information ........... 21 1.4. Institutional environment of governance .............................................................. 23 II. THE ROMANIAN CIVIL SOCIETY SECTOR .................................................. 29 2.1. Defining the sector ............................................................................................... 29 2.2. Dimension of the sector ........................................................................................ 30 2.3. Key characteristics of the sector ........................................................................... 31 Issues related to financing ....................................................................................... 31 Visibility and ability to influence and public support ............................................. 31 III. CIVIL SOCIETY INTERACTIONS WITH PUBLIC ACTORS WITHIN ANTICORRUPTION POLICIES ............................................................................... 39 3.1. Historical evolution of the relationship between CSOs and the government....... 40 3.2. CSOs experience in anticorruption projects and policies..................................... 43 Participation in the drafting and monitoring of the National Anticorruption Strategy (NACS)...................................................................................................... 44 Advocacy campaigns and coalition building ........................................................... 46 Raising public awareness on corruption .................................................................. 50 Capacity building ..................................................................................................... 51 Watchdog and monitoring activities ........................................................................ 52 Regional-level activities of Romanian civil society ................................................ 54 3.3. The experience of public institutions with CSOs involvement in anticorruption policies ......................................................................................... 55 3

General attitude of institutions on CSOs’ involvement ........................................... 55 Practical experience ................................................................................................. 55 Future ambitions ...................................................................................................... 57 3.4. Conclusions: main challenges to successful cooperation ..................................... 58 Challenges facing the civil society sector ................................................................ 58 Readiness of public institutions to collaborate with civil society............................ 59 Shortcomings related to anticorruption initiatives ................................................... 61 3.5. Public-private partnerships in anticorruption: lessons learned............................. 63 The system approach to anticorruption.................................................................... 63 IV. RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... 67 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................... 73 ANNEX 1. SURVEY RESPONDENTS ...................................................................... 77 List of CSOs to which the survey was sent and their responses ................................. 77 List of governmental institutions to which the survey was sent and their responses ..................................................................................................................... 78

4

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Governmental institutions AEP – Autoritatea Electorală Permanentă / Permanent Electoral Authority ANI - Agenția Națională de Integritate / National Integrity Agency ANAF - Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală / National Agency of Fiscal Administration ANRMAP - Autoritatea Naţională pentru Reglementarea şi Monitorizarea Achiziţiilor Publice / National Authority for Regulation and Monitoring of Public Procurement CAG – Central Group for the Analysis and Coordination of Corruption Prevention Activities CNSAS - Consiliul Naţional pentru Studierea Arhivelor Securităţii / National Council for the Securitate Archives CC - Curtea de Conturi - Court of Accounts DLAF - Departamentul pentru Luptă Antifraudă / Fight Against Fraud Department DIICOT - Direcţia de Investigare a Infracţiunilor de Criminalitate Organizată şi Terorism / Directorate for Investigating Organized Crime and Terrorism DGA - Direcţia Generală Anticorupţie / Anticorruption General Directorate DNA - Direcţia Națională Anticorupție / National Anticorruption Directorate ICCJ - Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție / High Court of Cassation and Justice MJ - Ministerul Justiției / Ministry of Justice MAI - Ministerul Afacerilor Interne / Ministry of Home Affairs O.N.P.C.S.B. - Oficiul Naţional pentru Prevenirea și Combaterea Spălării Banilor / National Office for Prevention and Control of Money Laundering UCRAP – Unitatea Centrală pentru Reforma Administrației Publice/ Central Unit for the Reform of the Public Administration Non-governmental organisations AID - Asociația pentru Implementarea Democrației / Association for Implementing Democracy ANBCC - Asociația Națională a Birourilor de Consiliere pentru Cetățeni / National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaus APD - Asociația Pro Democrația / Pro Democracy Association CeRe – Centrul de Resurse pentru Participare Publică / Resource Center for Public Participation CJI – Centrul pentru Jurnalism Independent / Centre for Independent Journalism CRJ - Centrul de Resurse Juridice / Centre for Legal Resources EFOR – Expert Forum FH - Freedom House Romania FPDL – Fundația Parteneri pentru Dezvoltare Locală/ Partners Foundation for Local Development Fundația Soros România / Soros Foundation IPP – Institutul pentru Politici Publice / Public Policy Institute 5

SAR – Societatea Academică din România / Romanian Academic Society TI-Ro - Asociaţia Română pentru Transparenţă / Transparency International România International institutions and organisations OECD - Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development ODIHR (part of OSCE) – Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, OSCE - Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Other abbreviations CSO – Civil Society Organisation NGO – Non-Governmental Organisation CVM – Cooperation and Verification Mechanism EU – European Union NACS – National Anticorruption Strategy FOIA – Freedom of Information Act

6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Corruption and anticorruption in Romania If corruption is partly attributed to the communist past, anticorruption is an effort that has been constructed mostly as a result of external support and pressure. The accession to the European Union and NATO represented the first practical steps of the Romanian government to build a legal and institutional framework. Even if the process has been difficult due to political pressures – taking into consideration that the former nomenclature has been an important factor in the post-communist transition and still plays a visible part – the anticorruption framework, including the National Anticorruption Directorate or the National Integrity Agency have started to produce track-records in the mid-2000s. Still, the global corruption perception indicators (and also the European Commission, through the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism) consistently show that Romania doesn’t need a more elaborate legislation or institutional framework, but rather requires more concrete efforts and political will in order to effectively tackle corruption. The civil society sector Civil society organisations are one of the most active stakeholders in fighting corruption. Despite this of the more than 60.000 registered organisations in Romania, less than 15% are focused on anticorruption, democracy, good governance or public participation. The most visible NGOs working on transparency and anticorruption are located in Bucharest and are expert-based. Romania lacks the category of membershipbased CSOs born out of ‘grassroots’ movements and civic activism. Instead, most nongovernmental organisations active in influencing public policy were created with external support during the 1990s. The international donors also offered support - mostly financial during the 1990s and early 2000 - and as such, their departure created difficulties in terms of the sustainability and autonomy of the NGOs, as the government has never created a coherent policy in this area. NGOs have contributed to the development of anticorruption and good governance legislative and institutional frameworks and by working in coalitions have managed to pass laws regarding free access to information or transparency in the decision making process. Still, after more than ten years from the promulgation of these acts, a significant number of organisations believe that the public administration does not act according to the legal provisions. As opinion polls and research have shown, the involvement of CSOs in the decision making process does not translate into practice in a worrying number of cases. Although they work with both local and national institutions, CSOs have issues working with Parliament, and in many cases this proved to be an instrument for promoting corruption rather than integrity. Involvement of CSOs in anticorruption policies and their interaction with public actors The level of cooperation between CSOs and public actors within the various stages of the policymaking process varies significantly. In general, the relationship between the Romanian government and civil society has taken place and continues to emerge on a largely ad-hoc basis. Although consecutive Romanian governments have started developing consultation methods with civil society, most of them were seen by CSOs as purely “imitative” and formalistic, deprived of genuine political will and interest on the part of the political actors and state administration to enable public participation in the decision making process. More institutionalized and permanent structures for cooperation with civil society were established by the Ministry of Justice within the process of drafting and monitoring the implementation of the National Anticorruption Strategy. 7

Most of the surveyed institutions do not see the need to establish normative frameworks regarding civil society’s involvement in anticorruption policies. However, there seems to be a lack of clarity on the part of government institutions as to what role CSOs can play in anticorruption. The nature of the desired cooperation, the targeted CSOs and the vision on the potential tasks to be assigned to them to implement and monitor policies or programs are rarely concretized. Overall, public institutions as well as CSOs appear to be unable to explain exactly why certain joint activities or forms of cooperation were successful. This difficulty in determining success factors can be attributed to the absence of proper evaluations of most anticorruption initiatives. CSOs feel that they should be treated and viewed as permanent partners and be involved in all stages of the policy cycle (i.e. agenda setting, policy adoption, implementation, evaluation etc.). CSOs have indicated that decision makers tend to be resistant to change and inaccessible for public participation when it comes to public spending, rules regarding conflict of interest or ensuring the independence of key anticorruption bodies like the ANI and DNA. Furthermore, CSOs cooperate less frequently with Parliament on anticorruption initiatives, as it is seen as a generator of corruption rather than as a model for integrity. CSOs feel that the main obstacle to their participation in shaping and monitoring public policies is the insufficient compliance of the institutions with transparency legislation (FOIA and Sunshine law) and integrity standards. These obstacles have driven CSOs to join their efforts. As such CSOs have been important actors in pushing for the adoption of new legislation and have acted as a counter balance to the political power in shaping public policies and complying with integrity standards. The most visible and impactful advocacy and watchdog initiatives have been realized by broader coalitions of CSOs, such as the Clean Parliament and Clean Government alliances. Still, the sustainability of such alliances and the long-term mobilization of resources (including volunteers) seem to be a challenge. CSOs use a variety of methods in their anticorruption work, including awareness raising, training of civil servants and anticorruption activists, capacity building, research and analysis, disclosure campaigns and investigations. Bucharest based CSOs appear to combat corruption and promote good governance differently from locally based organisations. One of the key challenges is creating anticorruption synergies between large resourceful CSOs in Bucharest with strong links to central government institutions, and locally operating CSOs that are able to mobilize local communities - albeit on issues other than corruption. Respondents maintain that funding for anticorruption actions is generally made available for limited periods of time and is subsequently too short to be able to measure the project’s impact. As a result a lack of sustainability is cited as one of the key obstacles experienced in cooperating with government institutions on anticorruption policies. Furthermore, the changing donor environment has created greater competition between fund recipients, which may impede cooperation even further. Another issue cited by the surveyed CSOs was that all too often the emphasis of sponsored anticorruption projects is put on general awareness raising measures. Most respondents agreed that awareness raising produces little to no impact, as there has been too much overexposure on the issue of corruption in the mainstream media and public discourse. However, more targeted disclosure campaigns, which are often based on journalistic investigations, have enabled CSOs to pressure government institutions to put certain issues on the political agenda. 8

INTRODUCTION About this report Overview/general considerations It is clear that the fight against corruption, both at the national and EU level, needs a strategic integrated approach, one that is both preventive and repressive as well as one that is supported by a large coalition of stakeholders coming from (1) the State and its governmental institutions and organisations, (2) the business community and individual businessmen as well as through their organisations, and – as is understood more and more – from (3) citizens and civil society organisations, including membership-NGOs, academic research organisations and institutions, and advocacy groups pushing the agenda for particular needs such as the protection of the environment, promotion of climate-saving policies, human rights, peace, disarmament, equality, integrity and anticorruption. Scope of the report This analysis report presents the current situation of civil society’s involvement in Romanian anticorruption policies. An overview is provided of the way in which civil society (in particular Civil Society Organisations (CSOs)) have developed over the years and how their cooperation with state institutions on anticorruption policies has evolved. In order to be able to draw on this picture an inventory was made of the legal framework of CSOs’ involvement. In addition, actual practices and case studies of cooperation were evaluated. This report is devoted to existing Romanian state institutions fight against corruption, to safeguard integrity and build relationships with CSOs and citizens. The report focuses on the various forms of public corruption in which at least one of the partners involved in a corrupt act is an elected official or civil servant. The scope of this document is on corrupt offences such as bribery, trading in influence and nepotism and as such it does not deal with ‘political corruption’. Examining political corruption would have required an alternative approach in which civil servants and elected officials would need to be directly involved in our research which was not the case in this study. Purpose of the report The report concentrates on a vision regarding the modalities with which NGOs could work together with government institutions at all levels of governance (i.e. local, regional, national and international (including EU)), and in all sectors of social and economic activity in order to fight corruption and safeguard integrity, thereby promoting the well-being and welfare of all citizens and the interests of the nation. This assessment report aims at studying the experiences of CSOs involvement in each step of the anticorruption decision-making process. Each of the stages (agenda setting, drafting, decision making, implementation, monitoring and reformulation) present opportunities for collaboration between CSOs and public institutions.

9

AGENDA SETTING

REFORMULATION

DRAFTING

MONITORING

DECISION MAKING

IMPLEMENTATION

Figure 1. The cycle of the political decision making process Source: Council of Europe, Code of Good Practice for Civil Participation in the Decisionmaking Process, 1 October 2009

As a result, the starting point of this report was an assessment of existing anticorruption programs and policies within state institutions (including the ministries). Firstly, this analysis helps discover the extent of integrated anticorruption procedures in Romania and whether there are isolated or ad-hoc initiatives in which cooperation between institutions and NGOs are either weak or missing. Secondly, the report provides an insight into the instruments used during the collaboration between citizens and CSOs and the State. This will allow the strengths and weaknesses of joint initiatives in the field of anticorruption in Romania to be better understood. Additionally some of the best practices from other EU member states regarding CSOs involvement in anticorruption are presented, making it altogether a valuable foundation for formulating recommendations on civil society’s involvement in drafting, implementing and monitoring anticorruption policies in Romania. Methodology This report used three data collection methods: (1) Literature review The research team carried out a thorough review of documents and legislation related to anticorruption, transparency and public participation in Romania, as well as relevant studies and reports dealing with the role and involvement of CSOs in influencing public policies and interacting with the public sector on anticorruption issues. The review established that although there are some in-depth studies on the size and characteristics of the NGO sector in Romania, as well as on the general trends of civil participation in policy making, the forms and nature of interactions between 10

CSOs/NGOs and public actors; their relation to anticorruption issues has not been fully studied. (2) Consultations with stakeholders The current report benefited significantly from the experience and knowledge of representatives of six Bucharest-based NGOs participating in the project and whose work is focused on anticorruption and related issues. Throughout the project, a total of four study visits and workshops were carried out: two workshops in Bucharest, one in Sofia lasting three days and one four-day study visit in the Netherlands. All workshops were attended by the research team, the project partners and various anticorruption experts and practitioners from the respective countries: representatives of NGOs and think-tanks focused on anticorruption, public institutions, the private sector, and academia. Through these consultations the research team gathered and evaluated valuable information, opinions and insights on the different types of anticorruption activities that NGOs perform within the three countries, as well as the experience of public institutions in cooperating with civil society on anticorruption issues. Best practices, lessons learned, challenges and areas for improvement were also discussed and are reflected in this report. (3) Electronic survey and interviews One of the key data collection tools was an electronic survey sent to two groups of respondents in Romania: NGOs and public institutions. Two different questionnaires were developed for each of the target groups. The survey was sent to 38 civil society organisations (NGOs, associations and think tanks, (for a complete listing including those who answered see Annex 1) working in the field of anticorruption, transparency, good governance and public participation, as well as 10 public institutions (see Annex 1) focused on prevention and countering corruption and related crimes. Of these, 13 NGOs and 7 institutions responded to the survey. In cases where the survey responses required further clarification and additional input, the research team carried out followup interviews by telephone and Skype with the survey respondents (see Annex 1). The NGOs were selected based on suggestions from our Romanian project partners and additional desktop research into the activities of civil society organisations involved in anticorruption, public transparency and good governance. Some NGOs that are mainly focused on providing services to civil society and encouraging citizens’ participation in public decisions were also included in the survey, although they reported to have limited interaction with central-level public institutions, if any at all. Representativeness The present analysis is neither exhaustive nor representative. It attempts to objectively present and review reported practices, experiences and opinions of both members of the civil society sector and of public institutions in Romania. Structure of the report The current report is structured into four chapters. Chapter I provides an overview of the corruption situation in Romania, and reviews the development of the anticorruption legislative and institutional framework. It highlights unresolved issues of concern and areas which require further improvement. 11

In Chapter II an overview of the civil society sector in Romania is provided. It assesses the dimensions and local specifics of the sector, such as its visibility, public support and ability to influence public decisions and generate activism. A special emphasis is put on how the donor environment has influenced the development of the sector. Chapter III reviews the types of activities undertaken by civil society organisations in drafting, implementing and monitoring anticorruption policies, including the methods used. The chapter further assesses key developments in the interaction between civil society and public actors within anticorruption policies, including the perception NGOs and public actors have of obstacles to successful cooperation. Chapter IV presents the main conclusions and recommendations drawn from the assessment.

12

I. BACKGROUND: CORRUPTION AND ANTICORRUPTION IN ROMANIA

13

14

I. BACKGROUND: CORRUPTION AND ANTICORRUPTION IN ROMANIA

1.1. Level and nature of corruption in Romania Corruption should be seen as a legacy of the communist regime that developed continuously during the transition period. The economic and social changes led to the growth of corrupt practices. The massive transfer of assets from public ownership to individuals coincided with the development of corruption. Moreover, corruption did not develop as a standalone phenomenon, but was related to organized crime and other illegal economic activity, abuse of power and misconduct. These recurrent impunities led to a class of individuals that are above the law – the so called ‘untouchables’ – became a reality in the ’90s and still continue to exist and influence major economic and political decisions. The legacy of communism can be drawn as a series of informal networks kept in place after the Revolution. After 2000 the policies changed as Romania joined NATO and the EU and had to show progress, firstly at the legislative level by integrating international conventions and best practices into the national legislation. In 2002, the institutional framework started to develop by setting up the National Anticorruption Prosecution office that plays an essential role in fighting corruption. Since 2005 the DNA started to gradually address complex economic crime and high-level corruption. Between 2006 and 2012 the DNA contributed to the conviction of 1.496 persons1 with an acquittal rate of less than 10%. In 2010, 11 dignitaries were indicted, including the former prime minister, three ministers, two senators and a deputy. In 2011, six dignitaries were indicted and four convicted, including two deputies and one former deputy. In 2012, another former prime minister has been convicted to two years imprisonment for corrupt acts2. The institutional and legislative framework was further developed in 2005, with the set-up of the Anticorruption General Directorate (DGA) and in 2007 with the National Integrity Agency (ANI), two significant milestones in the fight against corruption. Throughout this time civil society advocated for real progress in fighting corruption and for increasing transparency in the public administration and decision-making process. The NGOs used the external conditionality’s to promote the reform agenda – i.e. FOIA and transparency law were conditions put into international loan agreements. Moreover, NGOs such as the Romanian Academic Society (SAR), Pro Democracy Association (APD), Transparency International (TI-Ro), Centre for Legal Resources (CRJ), and APADOR-CH pressed politicians and the government to comply with the newly introduced rules, while offering guidance on how to improve the administrative process.

1 2

See more on the DNA website, http://www.pna.ro/faces/obiect2.jsp?id=192 According to the National Integrity Strategy 2012-2015

15

Still, even if Romania has visible integrity issues, the level of corruption cannot be measured precisely per se. We can measure the perception by using opinion polls and indexes, tools that show an estimation of the degree of corruption. The external monitoring reports produced by GRECO, the European Commission, World Bank, OECD and OSCE show the level of corruption in some sectors, but also the development or regression of the legislative and institutional framework. Statistics from the Ministry of Justice (MJ) and the Public Ministry can be used in order to reflect the number of investigations and convictions as well as vulnerable sectors which are open to corruption. NGOs have developed their own tools that aimed at measuring the corruption market informally. Table 1. Global corruption indicators Instrument Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) www.transparency.org/resear ch/cpi

Year 2012 2011 2010 2007

Score 44/100 3,6 / 10 3,7/10 3,7/10

Place 66/174 75/182 69/178 69/179

2006

3,1/10

84/163

Comments 0 is the lowest result, while 10 is the best. In 2012, the scale was 0 to 100

88% of the respondents consider that the level of corruption has increased, while 11% state that it remained the same Transparency International, Global Corruption Barometer www.transparency.org/resear ch/gcb/overview

3

16

2010/2011

Political parties and Parliament are seen as the most corrupt institutions (4,5), while NGOs have a 2,9 rating. Police rates 3,9, public officials 3,8, the judiciary 4

According to the National Anticorruption Strategy 2012-2015

Target 20153

6.37 – average for the EU

87% - EU average

1 is the less corrupt and 5 is extremely corrupt

EU average 4,4 (political parties), 3,5 (Parliament), 3,4 (Justice), 3,1 (Police), 3,5 (Public officials) 26% - EU average

2011 2010

10% of the responders consider that the anticorruptio n measures taken by the Government are effective 79/100 moderate 80/100 strong 81/100 strong 86/100 strong Democracy score 3,40 Corruption 4 Democracy score 3,34 Corruption 4 Democracy score 3,34 Corruption 4 Democracy score 3,29 Corruption 4 Democracy score 3,39 Corruption 4,25 -0,20 -0,21

2007

-0,17

2010 Global Integrity Report http://www.globalintegrity.or g/report

2008 2007 2006 2013 2012

Freedom House Nations in Transit (NIT) www.freedomhouse.org/repo rt-types/nations-transit

2011 2007

2005 + 2006 Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) - Control of corruption Reflects perceptions of the extent to which public power is exercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as "capture" of the state by elites and private interests. http://info.worldbank.org/go vernance/wgi/

0 is the lowest and 100 is the strongest

1 is the highest level of democratic progress and 7 the lowest. The Democracy Score is an average of ratings for the categories tracked in a given year.

Estimate of governance (ranges from approximatel y -2.5 (weak) to 2.5 (strong) governance performance)

Apart from the above mentioned indicators and official statistics, opinion polls illustrate tendencies within the population. In 2009, 93% of the respondents of the EU Barometer considered that corruption is a “major national problem”, compared to 95%

17

in 2007 and 96% in 2012.4 Moreover, 87% considered that there is corruption in the national institutions and 89% believed that there was corruption within the local institutions. In 2012, the statistics show that the perception is similar, aiming at 89% and 88%. In addition respondents (68%) believed that bribery is common among police officers, while respondents (60%) felt that corruption a bit less common in the judiciary (55% in 2012). 5 Apart from ‘grand corruption’, ‘petty corruption’ is also visibly present, especially in sectors such as health which seems to be the most corrupt with more than 61% of respondents believing corruption was present within the sector in 2012. Other sectors which are considered corrupt include public procurement (i.e. the awarding of public tenders and issuing of building permits) and education with 34%. A rate of 53% of respondents (58% in 2012) stated that politicians at the national level were corrupted and 40% (51% in 2012) indicated the local politicians as corrupt. On the other hand, politicians seem to score highest as sources of corruption, as they do not fight corruption enough (50% in 2009 and 61% in 2012). In 2012, 67% of the respondents stated that corruption has increased in the past three years. As seen above, politicians are seen as a source of corruption. First of all they are the legislators creating public policies and theoretically the providers of the legal tools for fighting corruption. Secondly, they should represent a model of ethics and integrity, as they are elected by the people and should represent the community to the best of their abilities. Still, both theses can be contradicted. Apart from not supporting anticorruption, politicians (from all parties and with all kinds of ideological views) were the cause of serious setbacks regarding the institutional and legal framework. Parliamentarians have supported initiatives that proved to be against the public interest, by dismantling institutions such as the ANI or the DNA and continuously demonstrated their capacity and will to put pressure on anticorruption initiatives6. Moreover, in the past few years, some important politicians were indicted for corruption. Recently, Parliament has tried to modify Law 96/2006, Statute of the Deputies and Senators, by strengthening its immunity and deciding on evidence that could have led to the prosecution of a member, thus playing the role of a judiciary actor.7 Another aspect that

4

The results are taken from the Special Eurobarometer 325 / Wave 72.2 - European Opinion Research Group, Attitudes of Europeans towards Corruption, 2009 and Special Eurobarometer 374, Corruption, 2012. Other data (UCRAP) show that 53% of the respondents (14.000 citizens, local administration and media) consider that corruption is very high in Romania. 5 The Central Unit for Public Administration Reform in Romania (UCRAP) has published research that demonstrates that the level of corruption in MAI structures is high (66.1% of the population), and the most corrupt institutions appear to be the Border Police, Driving Licenses & Vehicle Registration Service (61.4%), the regular Police (61.6%) and the Border Police (68.3%). Respondents consider that corruption in MAI structures is equally spread among staff with leadership and execution positions (45.9% of the population, 34.7% administration). Consulted at: http://modernizare.mai.gov.ro/UCRAP/wcm/idc/groups/public/documents/document/mdaw/mdew/~edisp/ucra p010617.pdf, p. 21 6 See more in Expert Forum (2012). Conflicts of interest and incompatibilities in Eastern Europe. Romania, Croatia, Moldova, Bucharest: EFOR. http://expertforum.ro/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Conflicts-of-interest-andincompatibilities-in-Eastern-Europe.-Romania-Croatia-Moldova.pdf 7 The President sent the proposal back to the Parliament once, according to the legal procedures and his attributions and the Constitutional Court found three times that the law contains unconstitutional provisions. The law

18

is connected to politics is the financing of political parties which was criticized by GRECO, OSCE and European Commission’s reports numerous times as being an area where transparency needs to be increased and better controls needs to be put in place. As a general view, corruption is not a standalone phenomenon, and can be found in combination with other types of criminal activities, such as trading in influence, organized crime or abuse of public office. Most often grand corruption can be found in public procurement, party financing and electoral campaigns or privatizations. Petty corruption is a frequent practice in the health, education or constructions sectors, but has also been related to the police and customs. Trading in influence, conflicts of interests (including nepotism or preferential treatment) seem to be most frequent according to the public officials8. According to citizens a lack of transparency within the local administration appears to be a relevant issue and might be considered as an element that elevates the risk of corruption.9 1.2. Legislative framework in the field of anticorruption The cause of corruption is often considered to be the lack of proper laws10, although Romania does have a complex legislative system. Recently, the French authorities recognized11 the Romanian legislation as a good example of anticorruption legislative framework. Therefore, as the institutions and legal instruments seem to be in place, the continued existence of corruption is more related to the lack of implementation of existing legislation. The current National Anticorruption Strategy (NACS) for 2012-2015 underlines that there is no need for new pieces of legislation, but rather a better implementation of the existing normative acts. At the end of 2011, the anticorruption legislation (laws, ordinances and decisions) included over 60 primary normative acts that embraced – on average – two or three modifications since their adoption until now.12 More generally, the Romanian parliaments and governments have been oriented towards producing rules for penalizing corruption, opposed to other European countries where the culture of prevention seems to work better. Integrity-related norms can also be found, namely in the Constitution, on topics such as conflicts of interests, incompatibilities or wealth. Romania has also focused on building international cooperation and ratified the main conventions to fight against corruption and promote good governance. Romania was disputed for more than half of year. You can consult the legislative evolution of the law here: http://www.cdep.ro/pls/proiecte/upl_pck.proiect?cam=2&idp=13021 (Romanian only) 8 UCRAP, p. 47 9 UCRAP, 17: while more than half the citizens (55.8%) are dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the manner in which citizens are consulted in different matters pertaining to local public administration, three quarters of APL representatives have declared themselves satisfied or very satisfied (75.9%) with existing consultation activities. 10 According to UCRAP’s study, 24% of the questioned subjects consider that the lack of legislation is the main explanations for malfunctions and on the other side 48% stated that new legislation could solve the problem. 11 Romania inspires France in anti-corruption efforts, http://www.balkaneu.com/romania-inspires-france-anticorruption-efforts/, 10/04/2013 12 UCRAP, p 26.

19

joined a series of international treaties and conventions, as part of their EU and NATO accession, as well as obligations required by international financial institutions (i.e. the International Monetary Fund). Some of the relevant documents include:  Council of Europe Civil Law Convention on Corruption (Law no 147/2002).  Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (Law no 27/2002).  The Protocol of Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention (Law no 260/2004).  UN Convention against Corruption (Law 365/2004).  UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (ratified in December 2002).  Romania is part of initiatives such as the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO), Stability Pact Anticorruption Initiative (SPAI), Program against Corruption and Organized Crime in South-Eastern Europe (PACO), OECD  Open Government Partnership (2011)13 The development of the anticorruption institutional and legislative framework was related to the agenda of the government in different stages of the transition and to ties with external partners and their requirements. In 2001, the first anticorruption strategy entered into force and focused on the construction of specialized agencies.14 The second strategy, 2005-2007 aimed at legislating the anticorruption area, while the next one, between 2008 and 2010 was sectoral and focused mostly on capacity building and administrative control through managerial instruments. The NACS 2012-2015 aims at increasing integrity management within public institutions, at all levels. The first steps in building the legislation were made at the middle of the first postcommunist decade, with legislation that covered the declaration of wealth (still, in a very limited and opaque manner) of public officials and civil servants. The European integration process pushed Parliament and the Government into boosting the legislative efforts. In 2000, Law 78 covered corruption, and between 2001 and 2003 three important laws were promulgated covering transparency in the decision making process, access to public information, and public integrity (conflicts of interests, incompatibility, and wealth). In 2002, the National Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office was set-up. Until 2007, a series of legislative acts were enacted, mostly related to the development of the institutional framework. In 2007, Law 144 introduced the ANI, at the request of the European Commission, which was introduced through the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM). The CVM has been a major breakthrough as it boosted the enactment in the area of anticorruption. In 2007 the Government elaborated a Plan for implementing the conditions (Decision 1346/2007). The process was mostly supported by Brussels, with the support of a reformist team in the MJ, led by Ms. Monica Macovei. NGOs have been a significant part of the process, as the NACS mentions: 13 The Government, through the Department for On-line Service and Design (http://online.gov.ro/) works with the NGOs in order to implement the Open Government Partnership 14 National Anticorruption Program, the National and Sectorial Action Plans against corruption, adopted through the Government Decision no. 1065/2001.

20

“The NGOs have played an important role regarding the support for the political actors, through their comments to the regulations, the exercised pressure over the policy authors and by providing experience. The NGOs have concentrated on supplying information, raising awareness campaigns and training citizens and public officials.”15 1.3. Legal and policy framework for transparency and access to information The fight against corruption does not only mean using legal and institutional instruments to tackle acts that are in progress or have already been committed, but also means developing mechanisms that permit stakeholders to prevent corruption. The legislation on transparency in the decision making process and access to public information are such instruments. The involvement of CSOs and citizens in political decision-making is largely dependent on the openness and responsiveness of government bodies and power holders. An important milestone was the enactment of legislation requiring transparency from public institutions and giving citizens and CSOs the possibility to get involved in the decision-making process.16 The Romanian legislation includes the following legislative acts that enable citizens and civil society to gain access to and encourage them to get involved in the decision-making process:  The Romanian Constitution:  Law 544/ 2001 on Free Access to Public Information.  Law 52/2003 on decision transparency in public administration.  Ordinance 27/2002 on petitions.  Law 215/2001 of the public administration.  Law 189/1999 on legislative initiatives exercised by citizens. The instruments of transparency and access to information have been included in several documents and strategies, concerning the relationship between CSOs and the state. However, they have been used more in theory than in practice. For instance, the cooperation with civil society was named as a priority since the first NACS: “One of the major objectives of the prevention policy is the involvement of civil society into the actions aimed at preventing corruption and informing the public opinion on the costs, causes and consequences of corruption”17 15 Raport de evaluare privind implementarea Strategiei Naţionale Anticorupţie 2005-2007 şi a Strategiei Naţionale Anticorupţie privind Sectoarele Vulnerabile şi Administraţia Publică Locală pe perioada 2008-2010 în România, http://sna.just.ro/SNA/Audit.aspx 16 Preda, Oana (2011), Public Participation Strengthening Processes and Outcomes of Local Decision-Making in Romania. In Forbrig, J. (ed.), Learning for Local Democracy. A Study of Local Citizen Participation in Europe, Central and Eastern European Citizens Network. Available online: http://www.callde.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2011/12/CEECN_CitizenParticipationStudy.pdf 17 Walker, Christopher, ed. (2005): The Anticorruption Policy of the Romanian Government Assessment Report. Washington DC: Freedom House. Retrieved from p. 142: http://www.just.ro/Portals/0/Lupta%20impotriva%20coruptiei/Documente/Audit%20SNA/FH_Audit_EN_16_ 031.pdf

21

Cooperation between the government and civil society is listed as one of the essential conditions for the successful implementation of the current National Anticorruption Strategy (2012-2015). One of the fundamental values on which the current NACS is based upon is transparency, which is described as: “The representatives of public institutions and authorities will provide free access to information of public interest, transparency of decision making process and consultation of civil society in this process.”18 Furthermore, one of its key principles is the “public-private partnership, which recognizes the importance of involving civil society and the business environment in concrete activities for implementing preventive measures against corruption.” Transparency towards citizens and civil society is one of the 13 guiding principles of the 2012 Open Government Partnership: National Action Plan which Romania joined in 2011. The priorities of this action plan included enhancing the consultation process in the drafting of public policies, ensuring the transparency of public spending and procurement. In addition the strategy for better regulation within the central administration (2008-2013) highlights the need for enhancing the consultation process with civil society. The strategy aims at creating a culture of communication between the central public administration and parties interested in the early stages of lawmaking. Furthermore the Government’s Annual Work Plan allows civil society to have advanced access to important initiatives proposed by public institutions. Concerns regarding anticorruption legislation Some concerns must be raised about the development and implementation of the legislation. One characteristic of Romanian governance is the abuse of Government emergency ordinances (GEO). According to the Constitution, they cannot affect the fundamental institutions of human rights and duties and must be used only in justified emergency situations. Yet, governments currently use them to modify legislation. For example, Law 144/2007 (regarding the ANI) was modified shortly after its approval in 2007 by such an ordinance. In 2013 another decision modified the again. Law 161/2003 was modified seven times through GEOs, while Law 78/2000 has been modified three times. The abusive use of GEOs has repeatedly been revealed by Romanian watchdog organisations and has been criticized by the European Commission and the European Parliament. In addition to the necessary updates and the synchronizations with European legislation, frequent politically motivated revisions are made have been all too common. Another significant issue is the lack of predictability in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court. Three important normative acts have been modified due to decisions of the Constitutional Court. During the same time the attributes of the DNA, ANI and the National Council for the Security Archives (CNSAS) have been reduced by the court’s decisions. Regarding ANI, the European Commission noted that it eliminates “the control of dignitaries’ and officials’ accumulation of wealth whilst in

18

22

Ministry of Justice, 2012, National Anticorruption Strategy for the period 2012-2015 p. 7

public office” and it is a setback from the current achievements.19 Moreover, between 2012-2013 more than 10 unconstitutional exceptions have been raised to the Constitutional Court with some of them still pending. Most of them are related to subjects that ask for the removal of their public office category from the list of targeted offices. 1.4. Institutional environment of governance Institutional framework The development of the institutional framework is also related to the governmental strategies and the relations with the external partners and their requirements. Some of them were set-up at the request of the European Commission before Romania’s accession to the EU in 2007. It should be noted that Romania has a rather extensive institutional framework, oriented mostly on penalization rather than prevention. Moreover, its development was not a quiet one, but rather hectic, due to the continuous pressure aimed at reducing or increasing institutional attributions. The anticorruption framework is composed of:  The legislature - the Parliament.  The Prosecution service - the Public Ministry: The General Prosecutor’s Office and other prosecutor’s offices, including the DNA.  The Ministry of Justice (MJ) – the organizer of the justice, as a public service / the Government.  The Ministry of Home Affairs , including the DGA.  The Courts – the High Court of Cassation and Justice (ICCJ) is the Supreme Court. The system also includes tribunals, appeal courts, courts and specialized tribunals.  ANI – verifies wealth, conflicts of interest and incompatibilities.  The institutions which monitor and control public funding: Court of Accounts, the National Authority for Regulation and Monitoring of Public Procurement (ANRMAP), the Fight Against Fraud Department (DLAF) and the Permanent Electoral Authority (AEP), which monitors electoral expenditures. The first significant step was the creation of the Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office in 2002, a specialized prosecution office in charge of investigating grand corruption. Still, success did not come overnight and the European Commission objected that the institution focused only on petty corruption. Due to a decision of the Constitutional Court in 2005, it was transformed into the DNA, working under the umbrella of the General Prosecutor’s Office. The DNA is staffed with officers, prosecutors, specialists and public servants and works in Bucharest as well as in 15 local offices. Until 2005, no high profile corruption cases were investigated. Currently, the track-record includes a significant number of high profile corruption cases in which members of Parliament, 19

Brussels, 20.7.2010, REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL On Progress in Romania under the Co-operation and Verification Mechanism.

23

current and former ministers, local administrators and magistrates were involved. Statistics show that between August 2006 and October 2012 a total of 4.700 persons have been indicted for corruption or related crimes with more than half of them having held important decision making or control positions. Between August 2005 and October 2012, 1.500 persons have been convicted for such crimes - including 26 mayors, vice mayors and vice prefects and 24 magistrates.20 The work of the DNA has been positively assessed by the European Commission. The latest report states the following: “DNA (NAD) has continued to investigate and bring forward corruption cases successfully. The number of final convictions issued based on the prosecutions launched by DNA has doubled in 2012 in comparison with the previous year. These have concerned politicians of all main parties. There has also been a constant increase in indictment and conviction in EU fraud cases led by DNA. This can serve as an important example for the prosecution as a whole, where there are signs of wide discrepancies in the results achieved by different prosecution offices.”21 The ANI is an autonomous administrative authority monitoring conflicts of interests, incompatibilities and wealth. The establishment of this institution was one of the European Commission’s four requirements that were covered in the CVM, in 2006. Although it should have started working in 2007, the first results have only been produced after 2008. Apart from being confronted with a lack of personnel and funding22, in 2010 Law 144/2007, which regulated the institution, was declared unconstitutional and therefore the attributions of the institution have been reduced. ANI has a track-record mentioned in all the European Commission reports after 2008 (within the CVM) and its activity has been recognized at the European level. At the beginning of 2013 the European Commission agreed that “Since the last report, the ANI has continued to develop its track record and to develop its operational efficiency.”23 ANI works with integrity inspectors who can investigate potential conflicts of interests and incompatibilities as well as the wealth of public officials. Regarding the latter, the institution must send the case to the Wealth Investigation Commission attached to the Appeal Courts. The track record regarding recovery of assets is poor. ANI produces assessment reports that create legal effects (including termination of employment in official positions) that can be contested in the administrative courts. ANI works with the prosecutors’ offices for criminal offences. The DGA was set-up in 2005 with the scope of preventing and fighting corruption within the Ministry of Home Affairs. The DGA is one of the few institutions with 20

DNA press release, 10 October 2012, http://www.pna.ro/faces/bilant_activitate.xhtml?id=23 http://ec.europa.eu/cvm/docs/com_2013_47_en.pdf p. 10 22 Several political pressures were put on the budget by members of Parliament, in order to cut down the budget of the institutions. Some of the MPs were under investigation for integrity breaches 23 REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL On Progress in Romania under the Co-operation and Verification Mechanism, http://ec.europa.eu/cvm/docs/com_2013_47_en.pdf p.10 21

24

prevention attributes, a characteristic that was included in the CVM reports. The supporting document accompanying the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on progress in Romania under the co-operation and verification mechanism, from 7th July 2011, noted that: “DGA developed a corruption risk assessment for MAI, including the police, resulting in the setting up of a Corruption Risks Register within all MAI structures and the identifying of measures to manage these risks. This is the first such exercise carried out in a Romanian ministry and can be used as a good practice when developing the methodology for the new national anti-corruption strategy. DGA has also developed joint action plans on prevention of corruption with the police and the border police, continued training activities on prevention of corruption for MAI staff, and continued awareness campaigns for the general public in cooperation with several national and private companies providing postal, transport and telecommunication services”.24 At the Ministry of Home Affairs level a consultative body without legal personality, called Strategic Committee (SC)25, was set up for supporting the DGA’s activities as well as for making recommendations concerning the prevention and combating field. The SC was created following the recommendation of European experts in order to have relevant feedback on the impact of the implemented anticorruption policies. The SC includes leading staff from various ministry bodies (e.g. Police, the Border Police, Gendarmerie and Police Academy), syndicates and NGOs representatives, as permanents members as well as, embassies and EU representatives. The SC meetings are held each semester or when needed, with the minutes being published on DGA web site.26 Also, an annual evaluation report should be drafted and published both on the Ministry of Home Affairs and DGA web sites. Concerning the DGA activity, the SC members could carry out documentation visits at the territorial level and propose improvement measures. The DGA works with prosecutors from either the DNA or from other prosecution services. The institution has also investigated large-scale corruption cases. One example is the extensive investigation against border police and customs officers in 2010-2011.27 The latest CVM report noted that: “The past few months have seen the Public Ministry, the DirectorateGeneral for Anticorruption and the High Court all continuing to work professionally and impartially, sometimes under extreme pressure. The resilience of these institutions so far reinforces the conclusion that their

24

http://ec.europa.eu/cvm/docs/sec_2011_968_en.pdf MAI minister order No. 1154/2006, now MAI minister order No. 23/03.02.2011, published in the Official Journal No. 104/09.02.2011 26 the SC minutes of different meetings are published on DGA internet page http://www.maidga.ro/index.php?l=ro&t=46 27 http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2011/02/24/feature-03 25

25

track record on high-level corruption is one of the most significant signs of progress achieved by Romania under the CVM.”28 The High Court of Cassation and Justice has jurisdiction over high profile cases, such as those involving Members of Parliament. The institution had a decisive role in some significant cases concerning important politicians and its positive evolution has been mentioned in recent CVM reports. The Supreme Court also has the role of assuring the interpretation and unitary implementation of the law by other courts. The Ministry of Justice has the role of setting up strategies and anticorruption legislation. Currently it has a significant role in coordinating the NACS. Concerns regarding the institutional framework Current major problems that are still highlighted by the European Commission through the CVM are related to the independence of justice, pressures on the anticorruption institutions, the continuous challenging of decisions, the lack of prevention and sanctioning related to public procurement frauds as well as asset recovery. Moreover, Parliament should provide more certitude in assuring a functioning legal framework and complying with the legal decisions involving its Members. The European Commission has criticized Parliament for shielding its own Members even if there are court decisions that should have led to resignations or dismissals. The proper separation of powers remains a subject to be discussed. The constitutional reform might weaken the institutional framework, by empowering Parliament in relation to other institutions.29

28

Brussels, 30.1.2013, REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL On Progress in Romania under the Co-operation and Verification Mechanism, http://ec.europa.eu/cvm/docs/com_2013_47_en.pdf 29 Read more about the reforms to the institutional system in EFOR’s brief - The dangers of the new Constitution and the temptation of absolute power, http://expertforum.ro/en/files/2013/06/Pol-Brief-23-EN.pdf

26

II. THE ROMANIAN CIVIL SOCIETY SECTOR

27

28

II. THE ROMANIAN CIVIL SOCIETY SECTOR

2.1. Defining the sector The difficulty with civil society is that it does not have a single definition and has been described in many ways. Still, for the relevance of this report we will define civil society as: “the community of citizens, who come together and associate within the public space that is distinct from the individual, and friendship networks, on the one hand, and the state and market, on the other. This space consists of intermediary groups, organizations, and associations that are formally established, legally protected, autonomously run, and voluntarily joined by ordinary citizens.”30 Some academics consider that it includes entities such as non-governmental organisations, unions, the Church or even political parties in opposition. The European Commission uses the term ‘NGO’ for those organisations that share the following characteristics:  NGOs are not created to generate personal profit. Although they may have paid employees and engage in revenue-generating activities they do not distribute profits or surpluses to members or management;  NGOs are voluntary.31 This means that they are formed voluntarily and that there is usually an element of voluntary participation in the organization;  NGOs are distinguished from informal or ad hoc groups by having some degree of formal or institutional existence. Usually, NGOs have formal statutes or other governing document setting out their mission, objectives and scope. They are accountable to their members and donors;  NGOs are independent, in particular of government and other public authorities and of political parties or commercial organizations;  NGOs are not self-serving in aims and related values. Their aim is to act in the public arena at large, on concerns and issues related to the wellbeing of people, specific groups of people or society as a whole. They are not pursuing the commercial or professional interests of their members.32

30

Marc Morjé Howard, The Weakness of Civil Society in Post-Communist Europe, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2002. 31 In the “Response” (27 April 2000) of the Platform of European Social NGOs to these ‘characteristics’ of the Commission, it was proposed to change this point in: “NGOs are formed voluntarily and usually involve an element of voluntary participation within the organization”. 32 Commission Discussion Paper “The Commission and Non-Governmental Organizations: building a stronger partnership”, Brussels, 18.1.2000, COM(2000)11 final. p. 4.

29

“Though these common characteristics can help describe the notion of the term ‘NGO’, it must be borne in mind that their size as well as their scope of activities can vary considerably. Some NGOs consist of a rather limited number of persons; others may have thousands of members and hundreds of professional staff. In functional terms NGOs can focus on operational and/or advocacy activities. Operational NGOs contribute to the delivery of services (such as in the field of welfare), whereas the primary aim of advocacy NGOs is to influence the policies of public authorities and public opinion in general.”33 2.2. Dimension of the sector The dimensions of the Romanian sector grew exponentially, more than fivefold between 1996 and 2006. In 2010, the National NGO Registry included 44.271 associations, 16.785 foundations, 758 federations and 633 unions, while in 2013 there were 61.242 registered associations, 17.772 foundations, 945 federations and 688 unions.34 The Romanian civil society grew with the support of external donors and got more important during the period of pre-accession, when it was involved in the decision making process. Still, the most significant part of the NGO sector is not related directly to anticorruption or good governance, but to recreational activities, health, social services and education. The number of NGOs that work only on anticorruption may be considered quite small. On the other hand, a significant number of NGOs implement projects in complementary areas that ensure the prevention and combating of corrupt practices, such as transparency, access to information, election monitoring, open data, public budgets monitoring, and so on. Although it is difficult to identify exactly how many NGOs work on good governance (access to information, transparency, public budgets, fair elections or public participation) and anticorruption. According to the Civil Society Directory (2010):35 “12.54% of all NGOs have as the main field of intervention civic participation and influencing public policies. Of these, the majority (68%) are focused on democracy and human rights, 15% work on consumer protection, 45.5% are concerned with discrimination and 56% deal with good governance and changing public policies.” The most visible NGOs work on enhancing democracy and human rights. Their image grew due to public statements, advocacy campaigns and coalitions. NGOs also got involved in producing legislative changes, in order to fulfil the constitutional dispositions and the provisions of the international treaties. Their involvement also includes signalling abuses of the law, raising awareness for the public and media, implementing civic education programs and working with the public sector on capacity

33

Ibid. http://www.just.ro/MinisterulJusti%C8%9Biei/RegistrulNa%C5%A3ionalONG/tabid/91/Default.aspx 35 Civil Society Development Foundation (CSDF), European Civil Society House. The Romanian perspective, Bucharest, 2012, p. 9 http://www.fdsc.ro/library/files/ecsh_report_romania.pdf 34

30

building initiatives.36 The important role of the NGOs related to transparency and monitoring of public institutions is specified within a 2005 Freedom House evaluation report and in other international documents. 37 2.3. Key characteristics of the sector Issues related to financing In the 1990s civil society was seen as the instrument that could change the status quo, by appealing towards two of its functions, the social capital (collective actions) as well as civil empowerment and increasing the responsibility of the government. Some of the important Romanian NGOs were created by external stakeholders, especially with US funding, with support from organisations such as the National Democratic Institute or USAID. Still, not all of the initial organisations developed in the same way, and their activity ended or got limited (for example, priorities changed as part of the EU integration), by their incapability to mobilize human or financial resources. Until the mid-2000s, the sector was prosperous as it was financed by external donors. Due to the existence of external financial and logistic support, NGOs developed an independence from the state and could therefore act and express themselves more freely. Watchdog activities blossomed during this period. Contrary to Western traditions, where NGOs are financially supported by the state, in Romania very little funds reached watchdog or anticorruption activities. After Romania’s accession to the EU, foreign donors began to retreat, as the integration in the EU assumed sufficient development of democracy in Romania. Once the major international financers had withdrawn, the state did not step up to cover the financial needs necessary for watchdog activities, making the sector vulnerable. There is currently no viable policy for supporting watchdog organisations. With the structural funds the situation became worse, as there were no anticorruption funds included in the operational programs and some of the organisations drifted away from their mission. The Romanian Government has a new task: to offer specific funding opportunities for anticorruption projects to be included in the incoming operational programs (2014-2020). The present NACS offers some possibilities for implementing its activities by financing CSOs inclusion, but few governmental institutions, if any have included this type of funding within their budget. Visibility and ability to influence and public support Civil society has not always been supported by politicians when decisions were taken and public support for NGOs has been low. As in most post-communist countries, the level of trust in civil organisations is low but on the rise. According to an omnibus research, just 5.6% of the 1196 respondents trust NGOs. 38 Just two NGOs working in the field of good governance have been identified and 0.6% are members of a civic 36

FDSC, România 2010. Sectorul neguvernamental – profil, tendinţe, provocări – http://www.fdsc.ro/library/conferinta%20vio%207%20oct/Romania%202010_Sectorul%20neguvernamental1.pdf, p. 160 37 Walker, Christopher, ed. The Anticorruption Policy of the Romanian Government Assessment Report. 38 Civil Society Development Foundation (CSDF), Omnibus Research, 2010, www.fdsc.ro/library/conferinta%20vio%207%20oct/Cercetare%20omnibus_rezultate.pdf

31

organisation. Citizens get involved in four ways: membership, volunteering, donations and mobilizing in campaigns. Still, all of the first three indicators are low for organisations that work with good governance and the fourth one is not developed enough, as citizens prefer to use new media tools, including for petitions, which have no real legal value. Therefore, most of the NGOs working on anticorruption do not have the strength of mobilizing citizens, even if “individual action and grassroots mobilization are being regarded by NGO’s as a method of achieving the type of society that citizens want.”39 In addition opinion polls show that a significant part of the population considers corruption to be an important issue. Anticorruption-NGOs are generally less visible to the broader public in terms of mobilization and can be defined as core-based structures, with a limited membership. They are based more on the use of expertise than on public participation – although this component is not excluded from their projects. Moreover, their impact on citizens is almost impossible to be measured and evaluated. In 2011 the Freedom House Nations in Transit report noted that “civil society enjoyed a considerable degree of public trust in 2011, despite adverse economic circumstances, but continued to face difficulties in mobilizing civic participation and local resources”. Moreover, “The biggest limitation of NGOs as they enter the arena to fight corruption is their self-perception that they are fighting with the backing of the citizenry as a whole, and that this gives them their legitimacy. The way that many are set up, however, does not reflect this position, since they have not historically pursued strategies to increase citizens’ backing of their work.”40 Also, the work of these NGOs reflects the work of a self-selected group of experts and does not start from populist platforms or large memberships. In order to “get popular support they have to convince the citizenry of the rightness of their position, and many NGOs do not spend as much time as they might on such work.”41 The problems with constituency that NGOs face in the contemporary Romanian context comes from the fact that NGOs, and not individuals and constituencies of citizens, are the main generators of activism in public participation initiatives.42 On the one hand because “civil society action did not develop naturally, but rather as a result of the encouragement and financial support of external actors.”43 On the other hand the 39

Iuliana Precupetu, Corruption in Romania. First Steps Towards a Grounded Theory of Corruption, ICCV, 2007. p 29. 40 Richard Holloway, NGO Corruption Fighters’ Resource Book – How NGOs can use monitoring and advocacy to fight corruption, http://www.ndi.org/files/NGO-Corruption-Fighters-Resource-Book-ENG.pdf, p. 21. 41 Ibid. 42 Preda, O. (2011): Public Participation Strengthening Processes and Outcomes of Local Decision-Making in Romania, in Forbig, J.: Learning for Local Democracy. A Study of Local Citizen Participation in Europe, Central and Eastern European Citizens Network, pp. 107-129. p. 111 Retrieved from: http://www.ceecn.net/storage/2011/CALLDE/complete%20study.pdf 43 Ibid

32

development of a culture of citizens’ activism and voluntarism is in its early stages. Scholars contribute this to a variety of factors including: a lack of critical thinking and reluctance to take part in decision-making combined with a culture of obedience inherited from the communist rule, general mistrust in democratic processes, and that participation can’t bring about any change.44 The Resource Center for Public Participation, a leading NGO dedicated to empowering citizens to take part in and influence the decision-making process, arrives at similar conclusions related to persisting trends and gaps in the development of civil society in Romania as a public actor:45  



The national watch-dog organizations, although visible and with access to a wide range of resources, still have a relatively low capability to organize, build coalitions, advocate and react to common interest events. In Romania there are efficient organizations, which are active in various fields (social, environment, etc.) and do many important things for their beneficiaries. However, they lack the tools and know-how with regards to representing the rights of the beneficiaries and the impact on sectorial public policies. These organizations are a very important underused resource in designing public policies. Small-scale organizations, that are active on a local level, represent an important element of the non-profit sector in Romania. Even if their impact is not striking, even if they don't have the same visibility as the large Bucharestbased organizations, their work is very valuable for the communities where these NGOs are active in. Nonetheless, their access to any kind of resources and to advocacy or public participation programs in particular, is very low. Source: Website of CeRe: http://www.ce re.ro/ENG/strategy

NGOs can be seen as the main actors that use transparency tools such as the: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Sunshine Law. According to the Agency for Governmental Strategies, from a total number of 11,761 proposals formulated by CSOs (mainly NGOs) in 2007, 6,586 were included in the government projects. In 2008 the number of proposals decreased to 7,662 but the proportion of the integrated ones remained over 50%. According to the Civil Society Development Foundation if we talk about transparency and the involvement in the decision-making process, only 12.4% of the NGOs that formulated proposals were satisfied with the degree in which their amendments or suggestions were integrated in the decision-making process at the national level. However, NGOs were slightly more satisfied with the implementation of their proposals at the local level (16%).46 44

Tarrow, S., and Petrova, T., Transactional and Participatory Activism in the Emerging European Polity. The Puzzle of East-Central Europe, in: Comparative Political Studies, vol. 40, Number 1 (January 2007), pp. 74-94, p. 100. 45 Resource Center for Public Participation. Strategy. Identified premises/needs. Modified 13 October 2011. Retrieved from: http://www.ce-re.ro/ENG/strategy. 46 Civil Society Development Foundation (CSDF), Romania 2010. Civil Society. Profile, Trends and Challenges, http://www.fdsc.ro/library/Brosura%20_engleza_final.pdf, p. 16

33

In 2010, a third of CSOs in Romania claimed to be involved in activities aimed at influencing public policies at both the national and local level.47 In addition 57% of CSOs have expressed interest in participating in the public policy decision-making process. According to a survey conducted by the Civil Society Development Foundation in 2010, only 30% of CSO leaders were satisfied with their organisations ability to influence public policy. According to their report CSO leaders are distrustful of politicians “democratic instincts.” As a result they prefer to utilize mass media as an ally in generating public support for new policies. One useful instrument that can help us compare Romanian civil society with neighbouring countries as well as to the Western Europe is the CSO Sustainability Index for Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia published by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The report for 2012 shows significant difficulties that occurred in the CSOs’ activities and a relative continuity. The economic crisis and the inability of the state to manage European funds have affected the financial stability of the sector and its human resources. The political environment has been agitated resulting in protests, resignations, a referendum and two elections. This represented a difficult environment for the NGOs, who were determined to act continuously in order to increase the responsibility of the government.48

47 Romania 2010: Non-governmental Sector: Profile, Tendencies, Challenges. Reply Civil Society Development Foundation, 2010. p. 9 Web. 48 United States Agency for International Development (USAID) - Romania - 2012 CSO Sustainability Index, http://www.usaid.gov/europe-eurasia-civil-society/cso-sustainability-2012/romania

34

2012 CSO Sustainability Index scores49 The following chapter provides a more detailed review of how CSOs engage in drafting, implementing and monitoring anticorruption policies. 49 United States Agency for International Development - 2012 CSO Sustainability Index for Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia, 16th Edition - June 2013, http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1863/2012CSOSI_0.pdf, p. 15. The scores are given by panels of experts in each country, on a scale from 1 to 7, where 7 is the maximum score.

35

36

III. CIVIL SOCIETY INTERACTIONS WITH PUBLIC ACTORS WITHIN ANTICORRUPTION POLICIES

37

38

III. CIVIL SOCIETY INTERACTIONS WITH PUBLIC ACTORS WITHIN ANTICORRUPTION POLICIES This chapter reviews:  the types of anticorruption activities undertaken by civil society organisations, including the methods used;  their interaction with government actors in anticorruption policies, including the perception of both, CSOs and public actors as well as obstacles to successful cooperation. It is essential to note that this review and any conclusions drawn from this assessment are relevant only if they take into consideration the dimensions and characteristics of the civil society sector, including its deficiencies and the challenges it faces, as described in the previous chapter. The following types of involvement of CSOs in all stages of the policy-decision process were examined:  Policy development: legislative proposals and advocacy, including coalition building  Policy implementation: monitoring missions; capacity building and trainings; analysis, polls and surveys  Policy monitoring and evaluation: watchdog activities; corruption disclosure campaigns; research and analysis, polls and surveys.  Cross-cutting instruments: raising public awareness and promoting citizens’ participation in decision making; e-democracy tools; research and analysis; polls and surveys; capacity building, incl. providing technical assistance and training for relevant actors as well as the transfer of best practices. The level of cooperation between CSOs and public actors within these activities varies significantly from confrontation and independent actions undertaken by civil society, ad-hoc exchange of information and consultations, regular dialogue, to more institutionalized forms of partnership with public actors. It is not the goal of the current review to evaluate the effectiveness and impact achieved through the anticorruption initiatives of CSOs, regardless of whether they were implemented in cooperation with public actors, within coalitions or independently. This is due to the fact that in the majority of projects such evaluations have not been made – either due to the difficulty in formulating measurable indicators from the outset or as a result of the financial restrictions and lack of resources needed to conduct proper evaluations. External (foreign) donors often put an emphasis on reporting on financial indicators rather than on qualitative ones. Thus, when asked about the impact of their actions, both public institutions and CSOs quote quantitative factors and outputs such as 39

numbers of trainings, policy briefs and media articles produced, rather than commenting on any measurable effect the activity had on corruption. Even when strategic partnerships between civil society and public actors have been established and regular dialogue is taking place, participants often feel that the co-operation is successful mainly due to the trust and mutual understanding created. However, the lack of traceable impact indicators other than outputs is a common problem of most anticorruption projects. Only one of the surveyed NGOs mentioned that their work has been subjected to general evaluation by their main donor (CRJ to the Open Society Institute). 3.1. Historical evolution of the relationship between CSOs and the government Even if consulting the community when making public decisions is required by law, transparency and receptiveness are not priorities for the public institutions, while a pro-active attitude still remains the exception that confirms the rule. Public participation is still seen as an item on a check-list and approached with a high degree of formality. Almost no interest is given to efficiency and citizens and NGOs are considered more of a burden than a resource. Source: Website of the Resource Center for Public Participation (CeRe): http://www.ce-re.ro/ENG/strategy The relationship between CSOs and the government has varied over the years. Relations with the social democratic government of 2000 were difficult, as the government was accused of attempting to control civil society and mass media. This relationship gradually changed during the following years. In 2001 for example, legislative initiatives from the government and the opposition were submitted to Parliament simultaneously, and a bill on classified information was discussed. The coalition of CSOs facilitated consultations between the government (Ministry of Public Information) and opposition (Liberal National Party). The result was a common position of all those involved on a proposed law that was later adopted by Parliament in September 2001. The final version of the law contains articles and concepts developed by Romanian civil society based on previous experiences in Bulgaria and Slovakia. The change in 2004 led to an improvement of the relationship between civil society and the public administration, as well as a spike in the number of anticorruption projects being developed by NGOs. In 2004, the MJ cooperated with civil society organisations in drafting the new Criminal Code, which was passed in the same year. Selected suggestions made by civil society organisations were taken into account and made it into the final version of what eventually became the new Criminal Code.50 The USAID NGO Sustainable Index Country Report for Romania (2004) indicated that civil society tended to meet with executive branch officials instead of discussing their issues with the legislative branch, which they viewed as being weak. Moreover the Report found that civil society often presented their concerns to inappropriate levels of

50

40

APADOR CH 2003 Report

government (i.e. local instead of national and vice versa).51 An inventory report on the state of civil society in Romania from 2005 described the relationship between the Romanian government and civil society as follows: “Although some CSOs felt that the dialogue between CSOs and Government has improved and considered it a strength of Romanian civil society, the majority of the stakeholders believed that the relation between state and civil society remains weak. Two of the most frequently mentioned opinions were, “[t]he state does not consult CSOs in the decision making process” or “the consultation of the non-profit sector by government is only decorative.” Moreover, consultation procedures are usually perceived as very difficult, and recommendations from civil society are not taken into account. More specifically, civil society stakeholders indicated that “the stiffness of the public authorities to receive input from CSOs”, “the hostile attitude of public servants towards NGOs” and “the unfriendly attitude of some public servants” are some of the problems.”52 Although things have evolved, and successive Romanian governments have aimed at developing consultation mechanisms with civil society53, most of them did not work properly, as there was no real interest among politicians for involving civil society in the decision making process.54 NGOs should be involved in all stages of the public policy cycle (problem definition, agenda setting, policy adoption, implementation and evaluation) and be treated as permanent partners. Due to the fact that legal bindings or political promises have not been respected by the government or by the political parties, the organisations did not become partners, but rather foes. The role of civil society as a watchdog has been visible in some essential moments for the development of public policies envisaging anticorruption and transparency. After 2000, good governance and the accession to the EU became important - thereby increasing the advocacy capacity of the NGOs as partners for institutional and legislative development. Apart from influencing the policy making process, NGOs became watchdog actors monitoring the activity of the public administration concerning transparency. The increased activity of the state in developing institutions for suppressing corruption, especially in the years before Romania’s EU accession, has coincided with a growth in civil society activities aimed at reducing corruption.55 In general the 51

USAID, Office of Democracy, Governance and Social Transition (2004): The 2003 NGO Sustainability Index for Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia 7th Edition. Ed. Todd Anderson and Jennifer Stuart. June 2004. 52 Civil Society Development Foundation (2005): Dialogue for Civil Society: Report on the State of Civil Society in Romania 2005. Bucharest: CSDF. p. 74 http://www.fdsc.ro/documente/13.pdf 53 Some examples include: The Inter-ministerial Workgroup for the Development of Civil Society (1997), a Directorate within the General Secretariat of the Government (1998), College for Consulting Associations and Foundations (2005), the Department for Governmental Strategies (2009) and so on. Note that due to political changes the structure, the names or scopes of these institutions has been also modified by the Government. 54 See more conclusions in FDSC, România 2010..., www.fdsc.ro/library/conferinta%20vio%207%20oct/Romania%202010_Sectorul%20neguvernamental1.pdf, p. 103 55 World Bank on Behalf of the Government of Romania (2001): Diagnostic Surveys of Corruption in Romania. World Bank.

41

relationship between the Romanian government and civil society before EU accession has taken place on a largely ad-hoc basis.56 Much of the cooperation stemmed from Romania’s need to implement reforms as part of their accession to the EU. The anticorruption agenda of NGOs was furthermore driven by pressure from Western partners and financing opportunities provided by international donors, foreign embassies and grant organisations. Formal and increasingly institutionalized dialogue between the government and CSOs improved as CSOs used EU accession requirements to advance their agenda.57 However, after Romania’s accession to the EU, cooperation between the government and civil society became increasingly more hesitant and competition based, due to the changing donor environment, but also because of the reluctance of continuous reforms in the field of rule of law and improvement of the functioning of the public administration.58 Consequently, apart from successful campaigns, the system changes proposed by civil society organisations often faced resistance from the state. There have been many occasions in which civil society’s activities did not end up having an impact on new legislation. For example, in 2003 more than 150 NGOs advocated against the draft law on political party financing allowing political parties to receive financial support from NGOs. Unfortunately the widespread advocacy efforts did not prove fruitful as the final version of the law still contained this questionable provision.59 In addition civil society had to fight in order to make institutions work. NGOs were a pressure factor against arbitrary decisions initiated against some of the artisans of the reform.60 Tens moments appeared when CSOs had to support the passing and enforcement of the legislation regarding conflicts of interests and incompatibilities, wealth and lustration, which finally was not put into practice. In 2007 and 2010, significant battles took place with Parliament so that ANI would be set up and could keep on functioning. The same happened with CNSAS in 2008. Politicians, from all parties, frequently provoked CSOs by asking or even proposing to dismantle anticorruption or integrity institutions and at the same time accusing interference by foreign actors, such as the European Commission, through the use of the CVM. Even if the efforts have not always been successful and politicians managed to gain victories in the fight against anticorruption, the interventions of NGOs have been visible and produced a positive impact.

56 Coșpănaru, I., Lonean, I., Mitică, R., Ionescu. G. and Drăjneanu, I. (2012): National Integrity System Assessment Romania 3rd Edition. Bucharest: Transparency International Romania. 57 Civil Society Development Foundation (2005): Dialogue for Civil Society: Report on the State of Civil Society in Romania 2005. Bucharest: FDSC. 58 Civil Society Development Foundation (2011): Romania 2010. The Non-government Sector. Profile, Trends and Challenges, Bucharest: FDSC. pp.95-114. Retrieved from: http://www.fdsc.ro/ cercetare. 59 Anderson, T. and Stuart, J. (eds.) (2004): The 2003 NGO Sustainability Index for Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia 7th Edition. USAID, Office of Democracy, Governance and Social Transition, June 2004. 60 See for example the case of former Minister of Justice, Monica Macovei, one of the artisans of the justice reform. More than 3,000 people protested against her replacement. Still, the Romanian case is not unique, as after the integration in the EU in some states the legislative and institutional framework started to shatter – see also the case of Latvia or more recently, Croatia. For more details, see Mungiu-Pippidi, A. (2010): Civil Society as an Anticorruption Actor. Some Lessons Learned from the East Central European Experience, Bucharest: Romanian Academic Society.

42

3.2. CSOs experience in anticorruption projects and policies The assessment of current practices and previous anticorruption initiatives as derived from the literature review and the survey shows that CSOs have developed a variety of approaches when it comes to combating corruption. Some of the survey respondents cover particular sectors i.e. the health sector, judiciary, energy sector, etc. Others’ expertise lies in the activity mode that they use: advocacy, awareness raising, capacity building, research and watchdog activities to name a few. The survey, as well as the review of secondary sources clearly shows that CSOs get involved in all stages of the policy-decision making process and build coalitions with peer organisations to achieve a greater impact. Most of the larger NGOs specialized in anticorruption combine several advocacy tools in their work, using both cooperation as well as on confrontation towards holders of power. They seem to realize that the key to successfully influencing anticorruption policies is by balancing between becoming partners of the institutions, but also - when necessary - fighting the public sector and in some cases taking legal action against breaches of transparency and integrity rules. “On the one hand, CRJ is taking a cooperative approach with central and local authorities, drafting and promoting good practices and providing training, and, at the same time, in certain cases, has taken a more adversarial stance, taking recourse to access to information litigation.” General evaluation of CRJ’s activities by OSI Budapest, 2010 (Source: survey). The ability of CSOs to influence public policy has been facilitated through the establishment of structures for cooperation and dialogue within the government, especially at the Ministry of Justice. Offices within ministries and local municipalities have also increased their interaction with NGOs. Many respondents shared the impression that in the past five years many administrative bodies have gradually become more open compared to the pre-accession period, although their motivation was in many cases limited to complying with the existing transparency laws. The survey established that the enacted legislation on transparency and openness in decisionmaking, although to some extent suffering from lacklustre implementation, has gradually changed the way institutions interact with CSOs. Some policy areas, however, have largely remained closed to civic participation and resistant to transparency requests and CSOs have attempted on numerous accounts to foster change and conduct influence through more confrontational methods. Such policy areas include the enforcement of public procurement rules and transparency of public spending in general, conflict of interests and incompatibilities and in some cases ensuring the independence of key anticorruption bodies (ANI, DNA). More sustainable partnerships with institutions have been established within capacity building activities where NGOs are seen as a valuable source of knowledge and facilitators of the transferring of experience from other EU Member States. The 43

Romanian government has also cooperated with CSOs in setting up public services. For example, the authorities collaborated with Transparency International, with whom it signed a cooperation agreement, allowing them to provide technical assistance on drafting legal projects on combating corruption and establishing the Centre for Anticorruption Assistance for Citizens.61 NGOs also contributed to the development and capacity building programs for institutions such as the ANI, and supported public activities through actors such as the National Anticorruption Directorate and the Permanent Electoral Authority. Another example can be found within the training of magistrates and other professionals to use specific legislation and acquire the necessary skills to combat particular aspects of corruption (e.g. in public procurement). Some respondents noted a lack of expertise and resources within state bodies, which creates opportunities for NGOs: “It is clear that the public authorities have limited capacities to develop sound analyses, and in many occasions they are eager to use the results of independent research. However, this measure has impact only when a sound methodology is used, otherwise they may be easily discarded as irrelevant. One example is the process of monitoring the implementation of the National Anticorruption Strategy. As this exercise requires great resources and expertise, the Ministry of Justice has asked NGOs to provide them with information and analysis.”62 Participation in the drafting and monitoring of the National Anticorruption Strategy (NACS) An important example of a more institutionalized and cooperative interaction between CSOs, the government and other public actors is the development of the National Anticorruption Strategies since the first such document in 2001 (NACS 20012004) up until the current strategy NACS 2012-2015 and their corresponding action plans, coordinated by the Ministry of Justice (MJ) where NGOs participated in all stages of the policy development process: drafting, implementing and monitoring. The first NACS Consultations regarding NACS I (2001-2004) was seen as being less robust and more superficial, then the consultations that took place in the following Strategies in which representatives of NGOs actively participated in drafting the text. Furthermore, the involvement of civil society in the implementation of NACS I varied considerably from one NGO to another and from one public agency to another.63 The Central Group for the Analysis and coordination of Corruption Prevention Activities (CAG), a monitoring body for the implementation of the NACS I, has been responsible for maintaining the relationship with civil society at the MJ. A group of 5 NGOs were invited to participate in CAG meetings as observers, compared with over 43 within NACS 2012-2015. Although in the beginning the attitude towards civil society was positive and efficient in terms of 61

Walker, Christopher, ed. (2005): The Anticorruption Policy of the Romanian Government Assessment Report... Interview with a representative of Soros Foundation Romania 63 Walker, Christopher, ed. (2005): The Anticorruption Policy of the Romanian Government Assessment Report…. 62

44

consultations on the FOIA and the transparency law, “a gradual change of attitude transformed civil society consultation from an efficient instrument in to a formality for an apparent transparency”.64 The cooperation had functioned within the generally limited efficiency of CAG, until March 2003 when most organisations publicly retreated from this group, accusing the government of simulating consultations with civil society for the anticorruption legal package. The NGOs argued that:  The CAG was not providing an appropriate format for consultations as NGOs only had the statute of observers and that it had limited the number of participant organisations.  NGOs were not given enough notice to properly prepare an analysis of the draft legislation.  Most of the NGOs proposals were not included in the final version of the legislation. In 2005 Freedom House carried out an independent assessment of NACS I implementation. It measured the Romanian government’s commitment to interinstitutional cooperation and relationship with civil society.65 Freedom House identified several shortcomings and concluded that the Romanian government’s commitment to cooperating with civil society was unsatisfactory. Nevertheless, the findings of the assessment report of Freedom House were taken into account in the next NACS. NACS 2012-2015 While the previous two NACS have only experienced the ad-hoc involvement of NGOs with mixed success, the process of adoption, implementation and monitoring of the NACS 2012-2015 has become one of the broadest platforms for cooperation between NGOs and government institutions. The current Strategy was developed “based on the conclusions and recommendations of an independent assessment of the previous 2 anticorruption strategies and following very extensive public debates and consultations (over twenty meetings organized in 2011, attended by over 500 persons, representing over 90 public and private entities).”66 The meetings were organized as consultation platforms, one of which was the Civil Society Platform. Most of the surveyed NGOs have been involved in the drafting of the current NACS by contributions to the text itself. This is seen as a significant improvement in the process since 2001. The interaction between civil society and public bodies in all phases of monitoring the strategy from development to implementation became much more structured and institutionalized. Most of the surveyed NGOs continue to be involved in monitoring the implementation of the strategy, by conducting independent assessment visits within different public bodies and using detailed questionnaires. Some of them noted that although their cooperation with the MJ has improved significantly into a partnership and 64

Ibid, p. 145 Ibid. 66 Ministry of Justice (2012): Romania’s Experience In Development, Implementation and Evaluation of Their National Anticorruption Strategy, 19 September 2012. http://www.osce.org/eea/93817 65

45

a permanent dialogue, the openness and collaboration of different government bodies subjected to their monitoring still varied. Some of the surveyed NGOs felt that their ongoing involvement in the policy implementation phase enables them to hold public officials accountable for their actions more easily and encourages them to work at higher standards. Few comments were made by the surveyed institutions on the involvement of civil society in developing and implementing the NACS. The National Agency for Fiscal Administration (ANAF) considers – according to our survey - the participation of civil society in the implementation of the NACS to be very important, especially through its representation in monitoring teams (peer review). No further views on the role of NGOs within this process were provided by institutions within the survey. The intensified interaction between public actors and civil society within the NACS process is reflected in a project initiated in 2012 by several NGOs67 led by the Centre for Legal Resources (CRJ): “NGOs – key actors in implementing and monitoring the anticorruption strategy”, aimed at involving NGOs, citizens and businesses in the implementation and monitoring of the NACS 2012-2015. During the next two years the NGOs’ objectives are to increase the number of joint anticorruption projects between public institutions and NGOs (including businesses), to stimulate active involvement of citizens in the fight against corruption and to independently monitor the first two years of the implementation of NACS 2012-2015. These objectives should be achieved through the following actions:  development of an application for smart-phones and tablets, providing information on anticorruption and allowing citizens to submit corruption signals and receive answers from institutions (InfoCoruptie free application),  organizing regional debates with public stakeholders and civil society that will generate innovative ideas for cooperation at the local level to increase integrity,  advocacy for inclusion of the financing of anticorruption actions in the annual action grants of public institutions,  civic monitoring of NACS 2012-2015. Although it is too early to assess the impact of this project and the outputs it will produce, it is yet another indication of the efforts on both sides to strengthen the cooperation between citizens, CSOs and government institutions in the field of integrity and anticorruption, building upon partnerships already established within the NACS process. Advocacy campaigns and coalition building Romanian CSOs are actively involved in advocacy/policy development campaigns, with the majority of respondents having claimed to engage in such activities. Advocacy campaigns are used to intervene when public policy does not 67

Pro Democracy Association (Timisoara and Braila Clubs), Petre Andrei University Iasi, EPAS Association (piatadespaga.ro), Synergetica Foundation (eruptieanticoruptie.ro)

46

coincide with good governance/transparency practices or when the decisions do not correspond to public needs. CSOs regularly put pressure on government institutions by attracting the media’s attention to the issue, pushing for increased citizen involvement and drafting policy papers. Overall, respondents felt that advocacy campaigns enabled them to integrate some of their proposals in new legislation, which is also the main indicator for measuring the impact of their efforts. Advocacy is one of NGOs most used instruments. Although some organisations have the capacity to perform such campaigns by themselves, the most successful initiatives in drafting and improving key legislation belong to coalitions or alliances. Broader coalitions of NGOs and civic pressure groups have been developed in response to particular political developments, events endangering democratic values and transparency, or as advocacy campaigns for the adoption of much needed legislation. Such initiatives appear to be more focused on confrontation and holding the institutions accountable rather than cooperation and partnership. The synergy of resources within such alliances allow several different methods to be used in parallel to achieve greater impact, including media campaigns and awareness raising, monitoring and disclosure actions, capacity building etc. Most of the respondents agreed that such bigger alliances have been more vocal than isolated efforts and have achieved considerable impact, but within the concrete political context and for a certain period of time. In many cases such coalitions have managed to win subsequent political support. Still, there is the risk of not working together efficiently. Also, in ample alliances, there are just some voices that speak publicly and make the alliance work. Sustainability and long-term mobilization of resources seems to be a challenge. Since 2004, broader coalitions of NGOs have been actively scrutinizing the public sector through a set of integrity criteria and level of compliance with regulations and principles of good governance: Clean Parliament (2004), Clean Government (20042008), Clean County Councils (2008), Clean Universities (2008), Clean Justice System (2007). Some successful campaigns related to anticorruption that did produce visible effects include: Civil and Penal Codes, Law of Financing Political Parties (legislation changes), Sunshine Law and FOIA, Law on Whistleblowers, Law on Corruption (78/2000) or the electoral system (legislation development). A public reaction by NGOs was given on the situation of Romanian institutions and legislative instability in the summer of 2012, some of which reached the European Commission. Coalitions of NGOs joined efforts to impact the structural funding rules and regulations and advocate for greater involvement of civil society as beneficiaries (through the Coalition NGOs for Structural Funds) or the Constitutional Reform – through debates and specific proposals. Some of the most successful civil society coalitions that succeeded in putting pressure on public actors to comply with integrity standards and implement anticorruption policies are: Coalition for a Clean Parliament, Coalition for Clean Universities, Antidiscrimination Coalition, Stop the Codes Coalition or Coalition for Fair Elections. What is common between these alliances is that their impact is more visible and measurable than other initiatives due to the legislative changes imposed. 47

Still, these coalitions were not permanent – although some of them were active over a longer period of time – and therefore could not ensure continuous intervention. However, the government should not see NGOs as occasional partners for discussing specific topics, but rather as permanent actors to be involved in the policy development process. The role of NGOs seems to be even more important when the opposition parties are weak or in a very visible minority, when NGOs ensure the role of watchdog and represent larger groups of the population. Examples of some of the most visible civil society coalitions in recent years are reviewed below. Adoption and use of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) In 2001, a coalition of Romanian NGOs successfully pressed for the approval of the FOIA. Several NGOs that were involved in the coalition perceived this initiative as one of the most successful advocacy efforts of civil society so far, as it ultimately led to the adoption of the legislation. The momentum built through the efforts of the FOIA initiative also led to the establishment of a permanent Coalition for Transparency in 2003. This coalition used the FOIA to push for transparency in areas such as state subsidies, phone tapings, and environmental protection. It won several lawsuits against government agencies on the basis of the FOIA, forcing the government to increase transparency.68 The surveyed NGOs reported that they continue to invest significant efforts in monitoring the implementation of the FOIA and putting pressure on the public administration to implement the law, by using legal instruments, such as filing lawsuits in court against non-compliance with the law. This seems to be a crucial aspect of their anticorruption work, as compliance with the FOIA is the key prerequisite for carrying out any monitoring and watchdog activities in the public administration. Open Government initiative A coalition of NGOs including the Center for Independent Journalism, the Soros Foundation and SAR were involved in the Open Government Partnership initiative, coordinated by the MJ.69 Romania became a member of the global Open Government Partnership initiative in 2011, elaborating on an Action Plan aimed at enhancing institutional transparency through two main pillars: public access to public information and offering public services in an electronic format (e-government). According to some respondents, the results were not fully satisfactory, as the ministries (the Minister of Justice was just an intermediary) were not willing to address the Open Government Issue in its complexity. For example, there was a conceptual confusion between open government and e-government, lack of technical knowledge, lack of administrative capacity (CJI). Some NGOs got involved in measuring the openness of different institutions by examining how they react to public information requests and to what extent they comply with the FOIA and Sunshine law. 68

Civil Society Development Foundation (2005): Dialogue for Civil Society: Report on the State of Civil Society in Romania 2005. Bucharest: CSDF. 69 http://www.opengovpartnership.org/countries/romania

48

Corruption proofing of legal codes In March 2009 the Romanian Cabinet sent Parliament drafts of four essential legal codes (the Civil Code, the Criminal Code, the Code of Civil Procedure and the Code of Criminal Procedure). The drafts of these legal codes were not subjected to public consultation even though such consultation is mandatory according to the law of decisional transparency. In addition the MJ did not conduct impact studies on the four codes (which is mandatory according to Romanian and European legislation). A coalition of 28 NGOs, trade unions and business associations, came together to force the government to follow the legal provisions. The coalition raised several concerns regarding the legislations’ vulnerabilities to corruption. However, many of the vulnerabilities remained in the final version of the codes.70 Clean Parliament The Coalition for a Clean Parliament (CCP) initiated by SAR in 2004 played a major role in influencing the local electoral campaigns in June 2004 and the campaigns for the November 2004 parliamentary elections, as it put the personal accountability and professionalism of the candidates at the forefront of public discussion. The first step the CCP took was to determine a set of criteria that would allow a candidate to participate in a Clean Parliament. Once they were established the CCP discussed their criteria with the leaders of the political parties who were represented in Parliament. The main political parties (the Social Democratic Party/Humanist Party of Romania coalition (PSD/PUR), the Justice and Truth Alliance (DA), and the Hungarian Democratic Union of Romania (UDMR) agreed with the criteria and publicly announced their support for the campaign. CCP put together a “black list“, containing approximately 200 candidates that the CCP believed were unfit to run in the election due to integrity issues. As a result, 98 candidates dropped out from the lists. Nevertheless, 104 of the “black listed” candidates were still able to enter parliament. The Coalition won all of the court cases brought against it by a number of candidates and dignitaries for defamation, based on the freedom of speech argument. CCP is cited in the World Bank’s 2006 manual, “Anticorruption in Transition 3” as an example of good practice. The methodology was later used in other public sectors (county councils, universities, and the justice system) through follow-up initiatives, which build upon the network established and the resources mobilized. “The more diverse coalitions are, including NGOs which each have a specific task (so not just formal, nominal coalitions), but also unions and other civil society actors, the more effective the projects becomes. In the coalition for a Clean Parliament the administrative reform NGOs did the organization, the journalists did the documentation of black-listed politicians, the electoral reform NGOs engaged the political parties for negotiations on the candidates and the legal NGOs defended the coalition’s leaders when legal actions for libel followed. Their efficiency was insured by voluntary participation too.” 70

Coșpănaru, Iulia, Irina Lonean, Ruxandra Mitică, Georgeta Ionescu, and Iulia Drăjneanu (2012). National Integrity System Assessment Romania 3rd Edition, Bucharest: Transparency International Romania, Jan. 2012.

49

Source: Mungiu-Pippidi, A. (2010): The Experience of Civil Society as an Anticorruption Actor in East Central Europe, Bucharest: Romanian Academic Society. p. 25 71 Raising public awareness on corruption CSOs are actively developing awareness campaigns. In general awareness campaigns are aimed at educating citizens about the consequences of corruption in order to encourage intolerance towards it. Romania’s Global Corruption Barometer indicates that there is intolerance towards corruption: 71% of Romanians that were requested in 2012 to give bribes declared they refused to give bribes. Some NGOs (e.g. APD) that work with volunteers and have a broader membership base have developed continuous campaigns for educating youth. Awareness raising often goes hand in hand with complementary activities such as training, education and capacity building. Opinions on the impact achieved through awareness raising measures alone are mixed among the surveyed NGOs: while some (CRJ) focus significant resources on this activity and believe that this contributes to the attitude of zero tolerance towards corruption among the population, others (IPP, Soros Foundation) suggest that this contribution is minimal as there is already a high level of general awareness of corruption among the population and public actors. To achieve greater impact, awareness raising should focus on more specific issues and should address the correct target group. SAR also expressed the opinion that awareness raising alone is not effective, as both sides (citizens and civil servants) have enough general knowledge on corruption. Needed are in-depth investigations and disclosure actions by civil society. But as corrupt behaviour is in most cases well concealed and as sophisticated detecting and disclosing them requires the skills of experienced journalists, experts from CSOs have been dealing with the issue for a long time. Thus, NGOs regard the more successful campaigns as those that make concrete cases of corruption more visible. NGOs such as ANBCC and CeRe focus on educating citizens at the local level about their rights to participate in decision making and encourage them to raise their voice, defend their interests and challenge the decisions of local councils. Citizens are mobilized to become active in pursuing practical improvements in local governance and community life. These NGOs believe that working closer with citizens is effective when addressing practical and very specific issues affecting the daily life of people, such as improving community services (road repairs, public transport, employment and social issues). These NGOs find cooperation with the local administration to be limited and difficult, which leads them to focus more on confrontational methods, putting pressure on local stakeholders and strengthening bottom-up activism. Awareness raising activities are an essential component of monitoring and watchdog campaigns (see further below).

71

Retrieved from: http://www.againstcorruption.eu/uploads/rapoarte_finale_PDF/The-Experience-of-CivilSociety-as-an-Anticorruption-Actor-in-East-Central-Europe.pdf

50

Capacity building Capacity building is mainly interpreted as CSOs delivering training to other actors, or providing technical assistance to public institutions to develop operational /administrative capacities in specific fields. It is more than awareness raising as it aims to enhance the knowledge and skills of the target group to tackle a particular issue on their own, or to work with others. It is difficult to assess the immediate effect of such activities on reducing corruption, but their strongest benefit seems to be in fostering cooperation and more informal channels for communication between different actors, increase trust and better understanding between those involved. Examples of capacity building activities implemented by NGOs include:  Providing technical assistance to different public institutions to ensure the timely implementation of policies and EU regulations to avoid infringement procedures (TI).  Training for judges, prosecutors and law enforcement officers to effectively combat public procurement fraud (EFOR, Freedom House).  Building the capacity of “ethics advisors” and anti-corruption councillors to ensure integrity and good conduct within local administration (APD, CRJ, FPDL).  Developing and supporting a whistleblowing culture and mechanisms within the local government (APD).  Training journalists and volunteers to investigate and report corruption (Freedom House, CJI, SAR). Improving communication and understanding between journalists, law enforcement and the judiciary (Freedom House, EFOR).  Enhancing the capacity of local NGOs to implement anticorruption initiatives and monitor the public administration, as well as enabling citizens to become involved in local decision making (APD, ANBCC, CeRe, Soros Foundation, FPDL, CRJ)  CSOs have used their expertise to ensure that best practices from other countries are adopted in the formulation and enforcement of new legislation. Many Bucharest-based, well-established NGOs provide training to local NGOs and media on how to uncover corrupt behaviour. Media training is mentioned as being a particularly effective training activity. The direct impact of this improved capacity is when corruption scandals uncovered by investigative journalists have gone on to be investigated by the police and prosecution services. Other training activities include educating citizens and civil servants on how to cooperate with local NGOs on good governance issues, training civil servants how to handle access to information requests and training local NGOs on how to implement transparency initiatives at the local level. Capacity building has been recognized by many NGOs as a useful tool for enhancing integrity at the local and national level, both among citizens and civil servants. Respondents described some of their capacity building efforts as particularly successful, as they managed to engage anticorruption institutions as partners – for example strengthening the institutional and administrative capacity of the ANI in the 51

field of declaration of assets (SAR). NGOs believe capacity building and awareness raising are particularly successful when they are focused on more specific issues where additional expertise is required and international best practices are introduced. The Initiative for a Clean Justice – Building a Fair and Reliable Judiciary The project was implemented by a coalition of NGOs and journalists in cooperation with relevant public actors. It aims to support the reform of the Romanian judiciary by improving the understanding and knowledge of judges and prosecutors about the fight against corruption and economic crime, by improving communication skills and outreach capacity of the judiciary with an emphasis on high level corruption cases and by increasing the transparency of the election process for the Superior Council of Magistracy. A series of round-tables/seminars with journalists, judges and prosecutors were organized to debate how much of the information regarding criminal files should be accessible to the public and when; representatives of the MJ and the Superior Council of Magistracy were also invited. The coalition is still in place and led by EFOR and Freedom House. Freedom House Romania (Source: survey) Watchdog and monitoring activities While NGOs’ cooperation with the public sector in monitoring and evaluating the implementation of policies is limited to their participation in evaluation missions within the NACS, they are actively involved in watchdog initiatives and efforts to disclose corruption vulnerabilities and acts at all levels of government. Watchdog organisations like SAR, IPP and Centre for Independent Journalism (CRJ) have been very active in monitoring the implementation of different policies and legislation as well as compliance with anticorruption measures.72 Monitoring and watchdog activities take place in a variety of forms. CSOs monitor the transparency of public decisions including the implementation of laws, public money spending and strive for greater access to information in order to ensure greater transparency within government or other public areas such as the media. Once an issue or problem area has been identified CSOs will ensure that the general public is made aware of the issue by distributing policy papers or working together with the media to disseminate the information. One respondent indicated that only such anticorruption projects that have permanent monitoring mechanisms in place are successful. One of the most successful monitoring/watchdog campaigns was the Coalition for a Clean Parliament in 2008. Other NGOs find it more feasible to focus on a particular sector or policy area, such as advertising public contracts, exploitation of national resources or assessing the work of the Romanian energy regulator. The majority of the respondents agreed that in some areas of public decision making, watchdog activities are highly necessary and are sometimes the only instrument that can lead to change. This is because public institutions, both at the local and national level, remain particularly closed to civic participation and requests for transparency and 72

Civil Society Development Foundation (2005): Dialogue for Civil Society: Report on the State of Civil Society in Romania 2005. Bucharest: CSDF.

52

accountability in areas such as public spending, distribution of national resources and public procurement. Due to the low level of accessibility of such issues for civil society, some NGOs have developed additional expertise to support their watchdog activities. Soros Foundation in its monitoring and advocacy projects related to examining exploitation in the natural resources sector, provides legal advice to the local community in relation to challenging public decisions on resource allocation. CRJ also developed a holistic approach and is often asked by other NGOs for assistance with legal expertise, access to information and court cases. Disclosure campaigns Respondents perceive corruption disclosure efforts by CSOs as being particularly successful; however, it is a resource-demanding endeavour, as it requires specialized skills and knowledge of the mechanisms of corruption that ordinary citizens do not have (SAR). Another problem is to be able to withstand legal claims filed by the affected public officials for defamation. Many NGOs have accumulated some practice in strategic litigations they initiate for non-compliance with FOIA. The sustainability of disclosure measures is another huge challenge. Many NGOs that work closely with the media have supported investigative journalism by providing training or even grants. The journalists that benefited from these measures have delivered numerous investigative articles exposing corruption cases that were published in both the local and national media. A direct result of this work is that several of the corruption cases revealed by investigative journalists have gone on to be addressed by law enforcement agencies resulting in criminal prosecutions (Freedom House, CJI). Networks of investigative journalists such as the RISE project have disclosed several cases of corruption and gained broad publicity. An example of a more systematic and organised watchdog initiative is Alliance for Clean Romania (www.romaniacurata.ro), which encourages volunteers nationwide to identify, investigate and report cases of corruption and contribute to the portal. Diagnostic evaluations, polls, corruption surveys and research Some NGOs have been conducting surveys on attitudes and perceptions towards corruption (at the local and national level as well as sector based, in the health and education system). According to one of the NGOs surveyed, on the issue of corruption, such tools are considered to be less and less effective, since the public tends to get used with the situation of “corruption being present everywhere” (Soros Foundation). At the same time, the authors believe that the lack of a sound and objective methodology for independent and accurate assessments of actual levels as well as the nature of corruption only intensifies such perceptions and does not allow for the identification of realistic priorities and needs. The majority of the respondents indicated that they undertook research and analysis to support their anticorruption efforts. This research is often included in the reports and policy briefs that are regularly published by CSOs and in many cases are an ongoing effort which are not specifically done as part of a particular project. Public authorities have limited capacities to develop sound analyses, and in many instances they are eager 53

to use the results of independent research but only when a sound methodology has been used, otherwise they may be easily discarded as irrelevant (Soros Foundation). Regional-level activities of Romanian civil society Although this is not the main purpose of our research, it is relevant to underline the contribution of Romanian civil society to the development of anticorruption activities in the region or at the European level. Romanian NGOs have worked with individual organisations, in alliances or under the umbrella of European and international coalitions. The organisations have used most of the activities specified above (i.e. advocacy, capacity building, awareness raising campaigns and research) and developed projects with the purpose of lowering corruption in the region and increasing integrity in the public administration as well as the general population. For instance, Freedom House has implemented (and is still implementing) projects that involve capacity building in the judiciary and media, while EFOR has together with partners from Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro or Bulgaria researched the degree of political clienteles in public funding and the issue of conflicts of interest. APD has developed and implemented projects related to civic education and observed elections in countries such as Moldova and Ukraine. FPDL and EFOR have implemented anticorruption projects in Croatia, supporting local and national institutions and civil society development of legislation, institutional framework or practice in order to raise the public integrity. Some of the NGOs, such as APD, CRPE or Centras also assist countries such as Moldova, as Romania has become a donor state after their accession to the EU. On the other side, part of Romanian civil society has become a trustworthy partner for the European institutions in monitoring anticorruption progress in Romania. The CSOs organize meetings, conferences or other types of public events as well as exchanging reports with the European Commission (especially within the CVM), OSCE, UN, OECD or the Council of Europe. The activity of the civil society organisations is mentioned in public reports produced by these institutions.73 Furthermore, Romanian NGO members offer their expertise to international organisations and institutions or are part of working groups. For instance, two experts (from EFOR and SAR) are part of the Expert Group on Corruption of the European Commission that has the task of assisting the Commission in the preparation of legislation or in policy definition. 74

73

See for instance, the progress reports published within the CVM: http://ec.europa.eu/cvm/progress_reports_en.htm or the OSCE/ODIHR reports: http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/romania 74 For more details see http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=2725

54

3.3. The experience of public institutions with CSOs involvement in anticorruption policies General attitude of institutions on CSOs’ involvement Most of the surveyed governmental institutions have an (sector-specific) anticorruption program in which cooperation with civil society is foreseen, or rely on the provisions of the NACS in this respect. However the nature of the cooperation, the targeted CSOs and the tasks assigned with implementing and monitoring policies and/or programs are rarely concretized. This lack of specification is also noticeable when objectives or outputs are assessed. Quantitative outputs are prevalent and therefore in many cases objectives are considered to be met e.g. when training was given to a specific number of civil servants on the topic of anticorruption. No examples were provided of any impact evaluations carried out, showing that the measures implemented have curbed corruption. Most institutions do not see the need to establish a normative framework for civil society’s involvement in anticorruption policies. The approach towards the collaboration with NGOs is rather informal, for instance by participation of public institutions in seminars organized by NGOs. Views vary on whether NGOs are to be consulted more often by Parliament regarding legislative changes on anticorruption. MJ stated that “the general framework for consultations during the public debates on proposed pieces of legislation is sufficiently provided for by Law no. 52/2003 on transparency in decision making in the public administration.” Others are in favour of more consultations (DNA). ANAF would like civil society to be much more involved in the implementation process of anticorruption policies. The National Office for Prevention and Control of Money Laundering (O.N.P.C.S.B.) considers that there is only limited evidence of the effectiveness of civil society as an anti-corruption actor: “the role of civil society in anticorruption continues to be an under-researched topic, and it remains largely unclear what role civil society can and should play in the fight against corruption.” “Civil society organisations and donors need to rethink their strategies. NGOs should consider moving away from broad anti-corruption campaigns to more targeted approaches in specific areas by involving those actors who are directly affected by corrupt practices. Now that the negative effects of corruption have been widely recognized, there is a strong likelihood that those groups who suffer from a certain type of corruption show interest in investing in anti-corruption and join civil society-led networks.” The National Office for Prevention and Control of Money Laundering (Source: survey) Practical experience Cooperation takes on various forms: joint projects, consultations, exchange of expertise, participation in events organized by NGOs, participation in trainings and capacity building provided by NGOs etc. The duration of the cooperation varied from 3 day training or workshops to projects with a duration of several years. There is no 55

information given by the institutions on how objectives were met, other than a general description of training, workshops or seminars which took place. The impact on the nature and level of corruption has not been evaluated. Most institutions are explicit when stating: “No official evaluation have been done of the specific anticorruption/good governance actions carried out together with NGOs.” The MJ points to the independent evaluation of the National Anticorruption Strategy 2001-2004 carried out by Freedom House in 2005, but did not express any view on the value added by this assessment. Some institutions such as the O.N.P.C.S.B. mention setting up “periodical self-evaluation missions on the implementation of the national anticorruption legislation, especially the preventive measures and reporting to MoJ.” However, they did not provide any assessment or insight into the quality of the cooperation with civil society within this process. Significant joint anticorruption / good governance projects: - Sector-oriented with national and international institutions and CSOs E.g. experience exchange, training of magistrates e.g. Council of the Magistrate, DNA and Freedom House Romania and other in the HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002578 - Fighting public procurement criminality. An operational approach. Another project concerned the exchange between the Romanian MJ and German Foundation for International Legal Co-operation of best practices in the field of investigating and solving cases of (high-level) corruption between Romanian magistrates and their counterparts from EU Member States. TF 2007/19343.07.01/IB/JH-10 TL “Support for exchanging best practices in the field of investigating and solving cases of (high-level) corruption”. - Sector-oriented (often projects aimed at the judiciary) with national institutions and CSOs E.g. training of judges and magistrates and encouraging the application and improving the efficiency of cooperation mechanism such as the Council of the Magistrate Economy, Legislation and Competition – Interdisciplinary Training for Romanian Magistrates, or the Initiative for a Clean Justice (DNA and Expert Forum, Freedom House); Improving the Fight Against Money Laundering and Corruption in Romania: Support for the National Office for Prevention and Control of Money Laundering with the purpose to improve the legislation and the institutional capacity, a cooperation between National Office for Prevention and Control of Money Laundering and Transparency International Romania. - National institutions and CSOs involved in reaching out to local institutions, private sector and CSOs. E.g. MJ: “the Centre for Legal Resources initiated a series of public debates at the local level, “Partnerships for Integrity”, aiming at informing and mobilizing local NGOs, the media, business sector and the public authorities on the implementation of the National Anticorruption Strategy 2012-2015. Three events took place between May 28 and June 26, 2013. These events are part of the project “NGOs – key actors in monitoring and 56

-

implementing the anticorruption strategy”, carried out with the financial support of the Civic Innovation Fund, financed by Trust for Civil Society in Central and Eastern Europe, sponsored by Raiffeisen Bank, managed by the Foundation for the Civil Society Development.” Civil Society Development Transfer of knowledge by law enforcement agencies to journalists. E.g. DLAF investigators trained investigative journalists in Training for Investigative Journalists - Transparency in the Management of EU funds.

Main successes in cooperation/best practices Institutions seem to have difficulty in explaining why a certain project or other type of cooperation between their institution and CSOs was successful. Projects are mentioned but examples of success factors are generally not identified. DNA does describe the success of its projects which are part of Clean Justice Initiative. The best practices are said to be the specific seminars and debates which were organized because “Collaboration with NGOs especially with those active in fields related to judicial system can contribute to defining the role of the mass-media in delivering information and to build trust and reputation for public institutions.” A best practice described by the MJ: “The extensive public awareness campaign carried out by the MJ between October 16, 2007 and the February 27, 2008, aiming at stimulating debate on vulnerabilities of corruption in the public administration and the judiciary, by identifying best practices and promoting the means to fight against corruption, developed in recent years – The “No bribe” National Anticorruption Campaign had a duration of 14.5 months. The project started on the 15th of December, 2006 and ended on the 29th of February, 2008. The campaign was financed through the PHARE 2004 program. The campaign had several components: • The media component, • The direct information component: anticorruption caravan in 17 cities in Romania, press conferences at central and local level, five seminars for public institutions (judiciary, labour, public administration and interior, health care, education sectors), three roundtables (for representatives of the business sector), five informative reunions (for journalists, representatives of diplomatic missions, key social actors and opinion leaders), educative micro-campaigns in universities and high schools. • The Internet component: the no bribe website (www.faraspaga.ro). • 50.000 informative guides and 35.000 posters were designed and disseminated to public institutions, NGOs and citizens. Future ambitions Very few examples are given by institutions of stakeholders from civil society that are preferred to be involved in the implementation and development of future anticorruption/good governance actions. The MJ considers the 43 NGOs that are members of the NACS’ dedicated platform to be the main stakeholders in implementing the NACS 2012-2015. MJ: “according to the Action plan for the implementation of the National Anticorruption Strategy 201257

2015, promoting integrity and good governance are two areas where partnerships with civil society are foreseen to be concluded. In addition, organizing periodical consultations/ public debates at the local level for promoting the best anticorruption practices within the local public administration and increasing the citizens’ confidence is also provided by the action plan.” DLAF would like to play an important role (by means of cooperation protocols) as an antifraud national coordinator through public campaigns and training on fraud prevention and the protection of the financial interests of EU in Romania. DNA would like to see its case-law be used as a starting point for a series of criminological studies conducted by NGO’s in all areas of DNA’s competence e.g. sectors as corruption and public procurement, corruption in law enforcement institutions, corruption and politicians etc. Other potential fields for cooperation named include joint public actions, trainings, seminars for judges, prosecutors and other legal professional associations, aiming at raising awareness of risks, the consequences and means for combating corruption, increasing knowledge and changing the attitudes and norms of the Romanian public towards this phenomenon. ANAF sees the potential in CSOs ‘involvement in media campaigns for raising awareness among the population about the risks and negative impact of corruption on society and the future’. AGD would like NGOs to be more proactive in promoting anticorruption results and messages within communities, as well as extending education projects, like the one implemented in cooperation with APD. This can contribute to building public trust in anticorruption institutions, a better visibility of their work and citizens being encouraged to send notifications on corruption offences. 3.4. Conclusions: main challenges to successful cooperation Challenges facing the civil society sector One of the factors that impede Romanian NGOs anticorruption impact is the fact that their activities are a reflection of a self-selected group of experts and do not start from broader civic platforms or large memberships. The issue of representativeness and civic constituency that CSOs experience stems from the fact that CSOs did not develop out of grassroots activism, but were a result of the encouragement and financial support of external actors, combined with other social factors inherited from the communist times: general mistrust of citizens in democratic processes and reluctance to challenge authority and self-determination. The challenge for CSOs in the contemporary context is to develop the ability for self-criticism and reflection, and increase citizens’ backing of their work. The small number of civil society leaders capable of producing change and attracting followers adds to this challenge. Reaching out at the local level Bucharest-based, well established and more visible NGOs and think tanks appear to naturally have much better access to the national government and its bodies, while locally represented NGOs prefer to work with smaller, local CSOs and municipal 58

authorities. NGOs that work at the local level tend to focus on enhancing citizens’ participation in decisions that directly affect their well-being and quality of life. Corruption is not directly tackled by this type of NGO. A particular challenge is how to create anticorruption synergies between large and resourceful NGOs with good links to central government structures and locally operating CSOs that are more successful in mobilizing the local community, but do not view combating corruption as their main mission. “We are devoted much more to ensuring that citizens are involved and their concerns are considered in the decision making process at the local level. There are other NGOs at the central level that have the mandate to fight grand corruption, they also work with the national government and the main anticorruption institutions – but this is not our mission. We are oriented towards small, tangible progress.” Source: interview with CeRe Readiness of public institutions to collaborate with civil society  The majority of surveyed NGOs indicated that the government institutions seem to lack interest and genuine will to cooperate on anticorruption. As one would expect when there is a lack of political will the opportunities for cooperation decrease. Respondents have indicated that cooperation between civil society and government institutions is particularly difficult when a large political majority exists in Parliament.  The same difficult relationship is reflected in the obstacles NGOs face with access to public information. While FOIA legislation grants access to public documents, respondents have indicated that there is a considerable difference in the response rate for document requests. For example, respondents have indicated that local authorities in rural areas have a lower response rate compared to authorities in urban environments. In some cases CSOs have resorted to filing lawsuits against state institutions for failing to provide information, which is supposed to be guaranteed under the FOIA. Generally the courts have ruled in favour of CSOs in such cases but in general the lawsuits can last even up to 1-2 years. Well-established jurisprudence in this field is missing.  Some policy areas have largely remained resistant to transparency requests and more closed to civic participation than others, the distribution of public funds/public procurement being one of those areas. NGOs also indicated that decision makers are resistant to change when it comes to rules regarding conflict of interests and incompatibilities and in some cases in relation to ensuring the independence of key anticorruption bodies (ANI, DNA).  More sustainable and institutionalized cooperation appears to be taking place within the NACS, as CSOs are involved in all stages of the policy process: drafting, implementing and evaluating of the Strategy. This is mainly owing to the creation of the Civil Society Platform, coordinated by 59



the Ministry of Justice. Nevertheless, the openness and collaboration of different government bodies subjected to the independent monitoring of NGOs still vary. Despite the positive example of the NACS, some of the surveyed government institutions indicated that they are unclear of the role that civil society can play in anticorruption and how effective such cooperation can be. Although cooperation is promoted within the NACS, there is no clear concept on how, when and in what form NGOs should participate.

Interaction with the Parliament and parliamentarians The survey indicates that civil society cooperates most often with ministries/government agencies, local administration, other NGOs or broader coalitions of civil society actors. In contrast, CSOs cooperate less frequently with the Parliament when it comes to anticorruption initiatives.75 Instead of collaborating with the NGOs, the Parliament seems to be rather reticent to common initiatives in the field of anticorruption and even shows a lack of interest in supporting NGOs.76 In various policy documents on the united fight against corruption, Members of Parliament (MPs) in both the chambers and Parliament itself are not mentioned as ‘stakeholders’. This requires further attention. CSOs represent people, but they do not represent ‘the people’. The real representatives of the people are the Members of Parliament. They should be at the forefront of those fighting corruption. A general popular opinion in Romania seems to be that Parliament and parliamentarians are corrupt, or in any case the opinion is voiced that most MPs are corruptible. As long as the general impression remains that the Legislator and also the Controller of all income and expenses of the State is corrupt, it will remain difficult to strive for a political and economic environment in which politicians, citizens and business people are free from corruption. The corruption issue has to become a central issue for parliamentarians. So far, Parliament does not seem to epitomize a good example of integrity. The cases mentioned above, in which the Parliament refused to put into practice the final decisions of the Supreme Court, or the lack of transparency (for example, the meetings of the Legal Commissions are not public and the transcripts of the discussion are not published), as well as the numerous cases of corruption (condemned or prosecuted MPs) and lack of integrity (incompatibilities or conflicts of interests) show that the institution needs to take further steps and assume its role as the main Legislator in anticorruption legislation. Instead of merely establishing new coalitions of NGOs, existing ones such as Coaliția pentru un Parlament Curat [Clean Parliament] should continue after having

75

The think tank Institute for Public Policy is one of the few NGOs that consistently interact with Parliament: “IPP has people in the judicial committee’s sessions whenever something related to the topic is discussed. We maintain a close cooperation with the MPs and give them input and amendments all the time, prior or during those sessions”. 76 A recent legislative initiative proposed to forbid NGOs to receive funds from foreign states and organisations. The logic was not to permit NGOs to transfer the money to political parties. See more here: http://www.cdep.ro/pls/proiecte/upl_pck.proiect?cam=2&idp=13229

60

evaluated their impact and after having made corresponding improvements in their working methods. Shortcomings related to anticorruption initiatives Financing and sustainability issues Financial restrictions on the part of NGOs and institutions have also hampered CSOs involvement in anticorruption projects. Respondents have indicated that funding is generally made available for limited periods of time and is generally too short to be able to measure the projects’ impact. As a result, a lack of sustainability is cited as another common obstacle experienced when cooperating with government institutions on anticorruption projects. One of the main reasons for the lack of sustainability is frequent elections and the subsequent changes in public administration. Following an election it is common for CSOs to lose the support of a public leader who had played an important role in the development of their projects; meaning that the projects results are diminished with each passing election. Also, the funds from the government dedicated to anticorruption are too scarce and there aren’t any clear politics or strategy for spending money on anticorruption. Lack of strategy and visions The frequent changes in government and subsequent changes in public institutions represent an issue as there is no continuity in the development of anticorruption activities in the long run. Also, the institutions do not have clear visions and missions and do not build medium and long term strategies, which in a topic as anticorruption is fundamental. Moreover they do not include all the potential stakeholders that may provide support in the development of such initiatives. Institutions as well as civil society organisations tend to rarely learn from their mistakes and do not properly monitor and evaluate their project or programs on a continuous basis in order to improve their working methods. The lack of institutional memory and proper project impact evaluation is lacking in many cases and therefore previous shortcomings are difficult to avoid. Setting objectives Too often anticorruption coalitions target corruption in general without concretizing the specifics of the corruption which it tries to eradicate. Each coalition should have a shared focus on a specific corruption mode. The starting point should therefore be a real understanding of the nature of the corrupt transaction (e.g. bribery, trading in influence or nepotism), the sector(s) or institution(s) in which it becomes apparent, the individuals involved in the practice and the reason in which correction mechanisms fail in addressing corrupt conduct. Without this type of clear focus initiatives will continue to fail.

61

“The second frequent source of inefficiency is getting the objectives wrong. To challenge corruption you have to understand how it works in its specific environment.” Source: Mungiu-Pippidi, A. (2010): The Experience of Civil Society as an Anticorruption Actor in East Central Europe. Bucharest: Romanian Academic Society. p. 27 Foreign donors Projects’ priorities, objectives and the choice of methods tend to be defined following an agenda set by foreign donors, instead of being developed on an individual basis, based on a realistic and objective needs based assessment. It remains questionable whether the priorities and objectives formulated by foreign donors in the field of corruption correspond to the real needs and problems taking place on the ground. There is no ‘Grand Model’ for fighting corruption. Best practices from elsewhere can only be successfully introduced in another environment if they tackle the same root causes. Al too often the emphasis of anticorruption projects is put on general awareness raising measures, although most survey respondents agreed that this method produces little to no impact given the overexposure of the topic of corruption in the media and the public discourse. “What donors attempt to reproduce by funding anticorruption projects is the monitoring of corrupt behaviour exercised in societies which have historically managed to clean themselves. That requires concrete projects addressed to the changing of behaviour, not the widespread “win-win” approach, as if anticorruption activists were some sort of missionaries spreading the word of good governance to pagans who have not yet had the good luck to stumble upon it by themselves.” Source: Mungiu-Pippidi, A. (2010): The Experience of Civil Society as an Anticorruption Actor in East Central Europe. p. 26 Shift in subjects A popular activity performed by CSOs is developing training sessions for NGO activists, public servants etc. so that they gain expertise. However, trained individuals tend to move to other subjects as the funds move from one priority to another. Also, well-trained public servants tend to leave office for the private sector, making training less effective in the long run. It would be more effective if individuals maintained their focus on anticorruption (CRJ). Also, structural funding can have an unexpected effect, as the number of organisations or companies specialized in training are not always of sufficient quality. The organisation of these trainings seem to be better adapted to the requirements of the market which tend to bet on quantitative and monetary perspectives rather than qualitative ones.

62

3.5. Public-private partnerships in anticorruption: lessons learned The system approach to anticorruption Anticorruption initiatives whether in the form of legal reforms77 or specifically established CSOs, can only be effective if the system in which the targeted form of corruption is fully understood. In the report of the Romanian Academic Society on the experiences with civil society as an actor in anticorruption in East Central Europe, it is stated: “To challenge corruption you have to understand how it works in its specific environment.”78 Ideas on how to tackle corruption must originate from empirical research and observations on how and why corruption takes place. Whether it is grand corruption or institutionalised corruption, both are the result of the way the system’s foundations, actors and instruments interact. In order for the involvement of civil society in drafting, implementing and monitoring anticorruption policies in Romania to be effective, the corruption system or integrity system needs to be understood and the intervention of CSOs needs to be such that it can strengthen the positive emerging anticorruption tendencies and correct the tendencies towards corruption. Only the Romanian participants in this project can draw on this corruption picture. The external participants are by definition outsiders, with a responsibility to ask the questions which trigger the Romanian participants to get the picture right. Information, experiences with anticorruption instruments, and best practices in the Netherlands or in Bulgaria can be exchanged, but only to stimulate new Romanian approaches to anticorruption; these are not to be copied and introduced in Romania automatically. They can only be effective if one understands how they will affect in practice the targeted system or context instead of their effect on paper. For CSOs to be successful in anticorruption initiatives the following needs to be clear: - The type of public corruption they try to eradicate: grand or petty corruption, political corruption, trading of influence, institutional corruption at specific institutions or with specific actors involved and bribes - The CSOs actual role: (watchdog, agenda setting, awareness raising/educating, bridge building, research etc.) In the objectives of this project it is described as “involvement of civil society in drafting, implementing and monitoring of anticorruption policies in Romania”. - Based on understanding the corruption system, what coalitions can be effective? Which CSOs, governmental institutions and/or officials, and/or business partners? Who is willing, capable and trusted to join the anticorruption coalition? Are individual actors individually and collectively responsible to the end result?

77 The National Anticorruption Strategy for the Period 2012-2015 shows an abundance of Laws, Regulations and Institutions that deal with (anti-) corruption. As in most countries, in Romania it is not a problem to become convinced that all legal instruments and all institutions needed to fight corruption and safeguarding integrity have been put in place and are available. 78 Mungiu-Pippidi, A. (2010): The Experience of Civil Society as an Anticorruption Actor in East Central Europe, Bucharest: Romanian Academic Society, p.27

63

-

What changes in CSOs and other actors’ own operations is required? With what internal and external focus?

With these four criteria taken into account, the drafting of the anticorruption policies starts. In doing so this helps keep the picture of the corruption system in mind, trying to understand how particular policies change this picture in the direction of the targeted objective: less of corruption type X. This requires a systems approach to the policies, their implementation and their monitoring. For example, understanding the system can mean that different coalitions play a role at different stages, whereby policies are implemented in different time frames because only this way do they strengthen each other instead of introducing these all at once. By implementing the policies in a certain order, one is able to monitor whether the system is still adapting itself in the direction of an Integrity System.

64

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS

65

66

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations included in this chapter are compiled from multiple sources. First of all, they have been suggested by the partners involved in the project. Secondly, we have questioned other stakeholders involved in anticorruption, especially nongovernmental organization. The third source for the recommendations was the workshop organized in Bucharest by the project partners together with civil society and anticorruption institutions. The workshop included a world café dedicated to brainstorming the current situation and finding potential solutions to existing problems.79 A. Recommendations for CSOs Civil society development and coordination NGOs need to develop a common platform that can be used to aggregate common statements in order to communicate and cooperate with public institutions involved in the fight against corruption. Romanian anticorruption institutions have a framework of cooperation in the form of the National Anticorruption Strategy (NAS). The civil society organizations` platform could be used to interact with this institutional framework. In this context, we can identify the need to develop a local and a national anti-corruption contact point. Consolidate the work in coalitions Working in coalitions has proved to be a powerful instrument in producing change. NGOs are more powerful and visible when working in coalition with other NGOs either for monitoring activities or for working with public institutions on policy issues. Still, the members of the coalitions should be aware of the time limitation of their successes and therefore should ensure a permanent way of subsistence. B. Recommendations for public institutions Develop funding mechanisms Since 2007 Romanian CSOs have seen the financing of their operational programs dwindle as they no longer received funds to finance their anticorruption activities. As shown in the report, most of the foreign donors that financed anticorruption and watchdog activities are no longer active in Romania. The development of both private and public financing schemes for civil society organizations involved in the fight against corruption needs to be encouraged. Therefore, apart from European sources, the national government should develop and maintain funding mechanisms. The Romanian Government should be tasked with setting up and offering: specific opportunities for funding anticorruption projects that can be implemented by CSOs. 79

The workshop was organized between the 16th and 18th of October. The information used in this chapter has been gathered from the world café Good practices on anticorruption policies in Romania and from examples of successful projects presented by NGO and public institutions representatives.

67

Not a few, but all governmental institutions should adopt the inclusion of nongovernmental organizations in their anticorruption policies and activities and make use of the possibilities already offered in the present National Anticorruption Strategy to finance the costs a part of their regular strategy. The budgets of anticorruption campaigns and projects should include this type of funding. Still, a very important characteristic of these grants should be the operational independence of the beneficiaries. Therefore, the fact that the state finances watchdog projects should not be endangered by political involvement in the development, implementation and monitoring of the projects. Moreover, the funding should be developed in a strategic way so that it would ensure the sustainability of beneficiaries over a longer period (up to three-four years of financing). Examples can be taken from Croatia, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Poland. Set-up functional collaboration mechanisms and coherent framework If we take into consideration the legislative framework and the current practice, there is no clear position in the relationship between the state and civil society. Therefore, the government should introduce policies (i.e. legal provisions and financial resources) in order to strengthen CSOs. The involvement of civil society in anticorruption policies can only be further developed (1) if there are strong NGOs willing to collaborate with the Government on this issue, (2) if these NGOs are strong enough to do so, (3) if the Government is prepared to help strengthen the NGOs in their legal position, while also (4) recognising that CSOs need that strength and cannot function properly without receiving adequate funding. Moreover, the institutional strategies should become more comprehensive and realistic. Institutions should enhance their collaboration with civil society organizations and recognize their role in the fight against corruption. This role should be clearly stated in the programmatic documents (strategies, internal rules or others) and must be enforced in the current activity. Enhance the role of the National Anticorruption Strategy The Strategy has managed to be one of the first mechanisms through which the NGOs and institutions fighting against corruption were brought together. Still, more stakeholders could be involved in this platform and in the implementation (including development, monitoring and evaluation) process. A significant issue with the implementation of the Strategy is the lack of funds for activities. Under these conditions, in order to ensure the sustainability of the platforms and increase the level of involvement of the stakeholders, suitable financing should be dispatched for the current and follow up strategies. The activities estimated to have the highest impact are the thematic reviews and the assessments of integrity incidents. C. Recommendations for CSOs and public institutions Become more open to collaboration It is important that within the anti-corruption system all elements are empowered to play a positive role. Empowering of the different parties implies:  The cooperation between the anti-corruption agencies; 68

  

The cooperation between the NGOs that are directly or indirectly in touch with fighting corruption The cooperation between NGOs and private enterprises/organizations. Contacts between the anti-corruption agencies and the anti-corruption forces within society.

NGOs, public institutions and business should become more open to collaboration. Although there have been a number of incidents which led to a lack of trust and confrontation over the past 20 years, according to the responses in the questionnaires, all parties should become aware that the system cannot be changed individually. Politicians have contributed to a certain state of mistrust, but examples in the research show that the collaboration can be successful, even though it might not become a good practice overnight. Build capacity for long term collaborations Previous experiences have shown that the best partnerships are built on trust and long term collaboration. This type of long term project involves mutual understanding between partners, common objectives and interests. Short term collaborations tend to fail due to a lack of analysis concerning the monitoring and evaluation of the collaboration. In long term collaborative projects, partners learn from each other, evaluate each other’s efficiency and work style and can adapt to the needs of other members of the partnership. This is why the institutional memory is useful in developing such partnerships, as it can offer insights into the efficiency or failure of previous projects. Plan for qualitative and efficient projects NGOs and institutions should be more careful and realistic about their working strategies and visions. It may be true that the current financing opportunities can have a negative impact on the activity of civil society organizations if we talk about strategies, but even under these circumstances the organizations should not step away from their mission, but rather adapt to the situation. Furthermore, partnerships should be oriented to the needs of the citizens/community. When producing grant proposals and projects, both sides should take into consideration existing projects and initiatives, so that they don’t overlap with existing ones. In relation to the need for transparency, both organizations and institutions should publish their project on their website including details regarding the projects activities and objectives. The research and analysis NGOs and institutions produce should be put to use when writing new proposals or thinking about new forms of collaboration. Increase the level of transparency The relationship between CSOs and anti-corruption bodies can only work properly if it is based on transparency; otherwise such a relationship risks harming the credibility of the CSOs which can be seen as the ‘mouthpiece’ of the authorities. 69

In order to secure such transparency, both CSOs and public authorities should improve their communication skills, tools and strategies, to secure a wide and nuanced dissemination of their message. CSOs:  Identify corruption risks and instances of corruption in their field of work (applying a “follow the money” approach) and signal it to authorities and CSOs specialized in civil oversight and corruption prevention.  Improve communication abilities or build new ones in order to maximize the dissemination of their message, these messages should be disseminated in accordance with the different shapes, vehicles or intended audience.  Increase the transparency of their work (via better communication i.e. publicly displayed activity reports or communicating their discussions with the authorities) in order to increase the publics’ trust and create a public reference for the anti-corruption agenda.  Improve the communication among CSOs, to avoid overlaps, mistrust and create synergies. Public institutions:  Pro-active implementation of transparency laws including a broad interpretation of their provisions in the sense widespread access to information.  Increased use of open government tools in order to provide sufficient and relevant information to the public (including CSOs). Shared responsibilities:  Respect the needs of the media (i.e. timely information, access to legitimate sources, supporting documents in open format, visual aids, etc.)  Work with new media agents (freelance journalist, bloggers and “influencers” ) to increase the dissemination of the anti-corruption message.  Identify good practices in anti-corruption work and replicate them at the local and national level. Focus on prevention Although Romania has enacted a whistleblowing law into force, in practice this law is not encouraged by the institutions, even though monitoring and capacity building project have been developed in collaboration with NGOs. Civil society organizations and public institutions involved in the fight against corruption should cooperate in order to develop, promote and monitor instruments supporting whistleblowing related to corruption. Moreover, they can develop and implement guides for enforcing integrity standards in public institutions. This will ensure that civil servants are informed and capable of enforcing the integrity requirements established by law, i.e. to enforce the existing legislative framework. 70

Educate stakeholders (i.e. the general public, civil society organizations and media) Both NGOs and public authorities have the responsibility of educating stakeholders. They should educate their constituencies on anti-corruption literacy, in order to increase the civil oversight and teach the public to better understand anticorruption issues and be able to appropriately reflect on them. Both parties should understand the role of prevention in the anticorruption process and therefore collaborate for developing, implementing and monitoring realistic and meaningful campaigns. Anticorruption education should be institutionalized as a result, the Ministry of Education has an important role in this process. Therefore, schools should provide courses on education for democracy80, including principles of democracy, human rights, justice (rule of law) and ethnics/integrity and anticorruption. The courses should be as interactive as possible with both CSOs and public institutions (including prosecutors and judges) being actively involved in the process. Media is one of the actors that can be either useful or damaging to both the rule of law and anticorruption efforts. Partnerships between NGOs and institutions should support the media, as one of the main factors of information and investigation at the national level and within local communities. Therefore, capacity-building programs should be developed in order to prepare investigative journalists or reporters interested in monitoring public institutions, human rights and good governance. This endeavour can prove to be difficult, taking into consideration the fragile independence of the Romanian press.81 Focus on communities and work at the local level Corruption (especially petty/institutional corruption) cannot be fought only at the macro-level and should therefore be targeted through programs that envisage the involvement of local communities and other specific groups. Therefore, both institutions and NGOs should not only implement projects with national coverage, but should also personalize their activity. Our previous activity has shown that targeted and local campaigns, with stories that target a specific audience tend to have more impact than the general and impersonal ones. Moreover, when local NGOs and the media work together in groups they increase their dissemination capabilities. Both CSOs and public institutions can explore the task of creating integrity islands. It is a prerequisite that there are enough people willing to be involved in such a project as well as the need for a societal leader willing to commit him or herself to this island of integrity (for instance the mayor) and if possible to get the involvement of NGOs and local parties. This has the potential to lead to a positive process and as a result serve as a positive example for Romania. By ‘bringing the local system in the room’ it is possible to recognize the way the corruption system works and to address the barriers that prevent the combating of corruption. 80

Pro Democracy Association and the Ministry of Education created an optional course for the schools and trained teachers all over the country to facilitate it. A manual called Education for Democracy has been published. The publication can be consulted here: http://www.apd.ro/files/manual_ed.html 81 IREX Media Sustainability Index (MSI) 2013. The notes on Romania are accessible on the following address http://www.irex.org/sites/default/files/u105/EE_MSI_2013_Romania.pdf

71

Use innovative tools for involving the general public in the fight against corruption Innovative instruments should be used by CSOs and public institutions as they enhance the participation of the general public in the fight against corruption while keeping costs low. Romanian NGOs have developed platforms that permit citizens to report acts of corruption in diverse areas of governance. Such platforms include www.piatadespaga.ro (Bribe Market), www.guvernmaibun.ro (InfoCoruptie) and www.alegericorecte.ro (Fair Elections). Although the forwarding mechanisms towards the relevant institutions can be subject to improvement, these tools can easily be used to determine the risks of corruption in the envisaged topics. Enhance the involvement of academia and the business environment in preventing corruption The expertise of the academics can be used as a valuable resource for drafting reports on public policies. Their academic knowledge can be added to the more practical experience of the NGOs or public institutions. A periodical national report on corruption, compiling national and institutional studies, statistics and monitoring reports, might be a good practice that would ensure a better assessment of the anticorruption battle. One other approach that seems to be needed is the better understanding of the corruption phenomenon. Both NGOs and academia could ensure a higher quality of criminological research of corruption at the national level, filling a void left empty after the disappearance of the National Institute of Criminology. On the other hand, the business environment is a significant stakeholder as it can have a direct interest in a clean working space. Moreover, businesses are valuable grantgivers through Corporative Social Responsibility (CSR) programs, especially for research and community-based initiatives. Conclusion: As was mentioned before these recommendations have been compiled using a number of sources including (1) suggestions by the partners involved in the project (2) discussions with various stakeholders involved in anticorruption and (3) discussions and activities generated during the three day workshop in Bucharest in October 2013. It is important to keep in mind that these recommendations are based on what was believed to been particularly successful in previous anticorruption initiatives within Romania, following our extensive dialogue with key anticorruption stakeholders including NGOs and government bodies. As a result they will be used as the basis of a more in depth best practices manual which will be produced as a follow up report to this Analysis Report.

72

BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, T., & Stuart, J. (2004). The 2003 NGO Sustainability Index for Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia 7th Edition. United States Agency for International Development: Office of Democracy, Governance and Social Transition. Ciocoiu, P. (2011, February 24). Romania steps up border corruption fight. Retrieved from SETimes.com - Southeast European Times in Bucharest: http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/ 2011/02/24/feature-03 Coșpănaru, I., Lonean, I., Mitică, R., Ionescu, G., & Drăjneanu, I. (2012, January). National Integrity System Assessment Romania 3rd Edition. Retrieved from Transparency International Romania: http://www.transparency.org.ro/politici_si_studii/studii/sistemul_national_de_int egritate/NIS2012_en.pdf CSDF - Civil Society Development Foundation. (2005). Dialogue for Civil Society: Report on the State of Civil Society in Romania. Retrieved from CIVICUS Civil Society Index Report for Romania: http://www.fdsc.ro/documente/13.pdf DNA - National Anticorruption Directorate. (n.d.). Rezultatele Directiei Nationale Anticoruptie 2005-2012. Retrieved from http://www.pna.ro/faces/obiect2.jsp?id=192 DNA National Anticorruption Directorate. (2012, October 10). IMPARȚIALITATE·INTEGRITATE·EFICIENȚĂ: Comunicat Nr. 721/VIII/3. Retrieved from http://www.pna.ro/faces/bilant_activitate.xhtml?id=23 EFOR - Expert Forum. (2013, June). Policy Brief N°23:The dangers of the new Constitution and the temptation of absolute power. Retrieved from http://expertforum.ro/en/files/2013/06/Pol-Brief-23-EN.pdf ERCAS. (2013, June 4). Coalition for a Clean Parliament - Romanian Academic Society (SAR). Retrieved from European Research Centre for Anti-Corruption and State-Building: http://www.againstcorruption.eu/anti-corruptionprojects/anti_corruption_toolbox/selected-projects European Commission. (2000, January 18). COM (2000) 11 final: Commission Discussion Paper - The Commission and Non-Governmental Organizations: building a stronger partnership. Retrieved from http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2000:0011:FIN:EN:PDF European Commission. (2009). Special Eurobarometer 325 / Wave 72.2 - European Opinion Research Group EEIG: Attitudes of Europeans towards Corruption, Summary Report. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_325_sum_en.pdf European Commission. (2010, July 20). COM(2010) 401 final: REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL On Progress in Romania under the Co-operation and Verification Mechanism. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/cvm/docs/com_2010_401_en.pdf 73

European Commission. (2012). Special Eurobarometer 374 / Wave EB76.1 – TNS opinion and social: Corruption Report. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_374_en.pdf European Commission. (2013, January 1). COM(2013) 47 final: REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL- On Progress in Romania under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/cvm/docs/com_2013_47_en.pdf Expert Forum. (2013, July 9). Clientelismul politic = irosirea banilor nostri. Retrieved from http://expertforum.ro/clientelismul-politic-pe-scurt/ FDSC. (2010, February). Cercetare omnibus: sondaj efectuat de Mercury Research, prin metoda omnibus, la comanda FDSC. Retrieved from http://www.fdsc.ro/library/conferinta%20vio%207%20oct/Cercetare%20omnibu s_rezultate.pdf FDSC. (n.d.). România 2010. Sectorul neguvernamental - profi l, tendinţe, provocări -. Retrieved from http://www.fdsc.ro/library/conferinta%20vio%207%20oct/Romania%202010_S ectorul%20neguvernamental1.pdf Freedom House INC. (2013, March 15). The Initiative for Clean Justice. Retrieved from http://freedomhouse.ro/en/index.php/proiecte/initiativa-pentru-o-justitiecurata/item/20-the-initiative-for-clean-justice Holloway, R. (n.d.). NGO Corruption Fighters' Resource Book - How NGOs can use monitoring and advocacy to fight corruption. Retrieved from http://www.ndi.org/files/NGO-Corruption-Fighters-Resource-Book-ENG.pdf Howard, M. M. (2003). The Weakness of Civil Society in Post-Communist Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mungiu-Pippidi, A. (2010). Civil Society as an Anticorruption Actor. Some Lessons Learned from the East Central European Experience. Hamburg: GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies. Precupetu, I. (2007). Corruption in Romania - First Steps Towards a Grounded Theory of Corruption. Retrieved from Discussion Paper Series N°4: http://www.unikonstanz.de/crimeandculture/docs/Discussion_Paper_No_4_ICCV_Romania_Ju ly_2007.pdf Preda, O. (2011). Public Participation Strengthening Process and Outcomes of Local Decision-Making in Romania. In J. Forbrig, Learning for Local Democracy. A Study of Local Citizen Participation in Europe, Central and Eastern European Citizens Network (pp. 90-107). Central and Eastern European Citizens Network. Romanian Ministry of Justice. (2012, September 19). Romania's Experience in Development, Implementation and Evaluation of The National Anticorruption Strategy. Retrieved from http://www.osce.org/eea/93817 Romanian Ministry of Justice. (n.d.). National Anticorruption Strategy 2012-2015. Retrieved from http://www.anticorruption-romania.org/docman/doc_download/83-nationalanticorruption-strategy-2012-2015-annex-1 Romanian Ministry of Justice. (n.d.). Raport de evaluare privind implementarea Strategiei Naţionale Anticorupţie 2005-2007 şi a Strategiei Naţionale 74

Anticorupţie privind Sectoarele Vulnerabile şi Administraţia Publică Locală pe perioada 2008-2010 în România. Retrieved from http://sna.just.ro/SNA/Audit.aspx Romanian Ministry of Justice. (n.d.). Registrul National ONG. Retrieved from http://www.just.ro/MinisterulJusti%C8%9Biei/RegistrulNa%C5%A3ionalONG/ tabid/91/Default.aspx Ștefan, L., Pârvu, S., Podumljak, M., & Cozonac, C. (2012). Conflicts of interest and incompatibilities in Eastern Europe. Romania, Croatia, Moldova. Retrieved from EFOR Romania:, http://expertforum.ro/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Conflicts-of-interest-andincompatibilities-in-Eastern-Europe.-Romania-Croatia-Moldova.pdf Walker, C. (ed.). (2005). The Anticorruption Policy of the Romanian Government Assessment Report. Retrieved from Romanian Ministry of Justice and Freedom House INC.: http://www.just.ro/Portals/0/Lupta%20impotriva%20coruptiei/Documente/Audit %20SNA/FH_Audit_EN_16_031.pdf World Bank on Behalf of the Government of Romania. (2001, March 29). Diagnostic Surveys of Corruption in Romania. Retrieved from http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/anticorrupt/romenglish.pdf

75

76

ANNEX 1. SURVEY RESPONDENTS List of CSOs to which the survey was sent and their responses CSO to which the survey was sent Survey response Interview /consultation √ √ Expert Forum √ √ Freedom House √ √ Pro Democracy Association Pro Democracy Association Bucharest √ Club Pro Democracy Association – regional clubs √ √ Center for Independent Journalism Association for Implementing √ √ Democracy √ √ Institute for Public Policy √ √ Romanian Academic Society √ √ Soros Foundation √ Transparency International Romania √ Center for Legal Resources Partners Foundation for Local √ √ Development Recourse Center for Public √ √ Participation National Association of Citizens Advice √ √ Bureaux ActiveWatch Assistance Center for Nongovernmental Organizations Association EPAS Foundation for Development of Civil Society Center for Civic Resources Euruptieanticoruptie Romanian Centre for European Policies Ratiu Center for Democracy RISE Project Association for the Defense of Human Rights in Romania - the Helsinki Committee Association of Romanian Magistrates Association Social Alternatives 77

Euroregional Center for Democracy Funky Citizens Agenda 21 Group for Social Dialogue CENPO The Advocacy Academy Foundation for Democratic Change Civitas Foundation for Civil Society Romanian Group for Defending the Human Rights Romani CRISS Centre for Education 2000 List of governmental institutions to which the survey was sent and their responses Government Institutions to which the survey was sent Survey response √ Ministry of Justice √ Council of Magistrates √ National Anticorruption Directorate √ Fight Against Fraud Department √ National Agency for Fiscal Administration National Office for Prevention and Control of Money √ Laundering √ General Inspectorate of the Romanian Police National Integrity Agency Ministry of Education Ministry of Health

78