Making

Civil Society
Work

0
 ROMANIA 2001

Making Civil Society Work

 1
Chapter

Background information
An overview of Romania

Area: 238,391 sq. km (12th position in Europe).

Border Length: 3,190.3 km

Geological Age: Same with the European Continent, some 550 million
years.

Physical Features: Mountains (31%), hills and plateaus (33%), plains

(36%).

Hydrography: The river Danube in the south of the country, length

1,075 km (out of the total 2,850 km from its source to its flowing into the
sea)
Other Rivers: Mures, Olt, Prut, Siret, Ialomita, Somes, Arges, Jiu, Buzau,
Bistrita etc.
Lakes: approximately 2,300 lakes and over 1,150 ponds (2,650 sq.km).
The best known are Razelm (415 sq. km), Sinoe (171 sq. km), Brates (21
sq. km), Tasaul (20 sq. km), Techirghiol (12 sq. km) and Snagov (5.8 sq.
km).

Climate: Temperate continental, with oceanic influences from the west,

Mediterranean from the south-west and excessive continental from the
north-east. Mean annual temperatures: ranging between 8 degrees in
the north and 11 degrees in the south. Average annual rainfall does not
exceed 700 m.

2
Population: (according to the 7 January 1992 census returns)
22,788,993 inhabitants. Density: 95.7 inhabitants per sq. km (Romanians
living outsides the boundaries some 9 million). In Europe, in the Republic
of Moldova, some 4 million. In Hungary, Ukraine, Serbia, Greece, Albania
some 2 million. In the United States of America and Canada over 2
million. Others in South America, South Africa and Australia.
Distribution by age groups: 0-14 years - 22,7%, 15-18 years - 7,4%, 20-34
years - 22,3%, 35-54 years 25,3%, 55-64 years - 11,4%, 70-79 years -
6,4%, over 80 years - 4,5%.

Demographic structure: Romanians - 89.47%; Hungarians (plus

Szecklers) - 7.12%; Gypsies - 1.76%; other nationalities - 1.65%.

Life expectancy - men 66.5 years; women 73.2 years

Population growth (census years): 8.600.000 (1859), 12.923.600

(1912), 18.052.896 (1930), 15.872.624 (1948), 17.489.450 (1956),
19.103.163 (1966), 21.559.910 (1977).

Capital: Bucharest municipality (1,521 sq. km, divided into six

administrative districts, with a population of 2,066,723) lies in the south-
eastern part of the country, in the Romanian Plain (altitude 85 m). It
dates back to the 14th century and was recorded in writing for the first
time in 1459 as residence of prince Vlad the Impeller. Capital of
Wallachia in the 17th-19th centuries and then of Romania since 1862,
Bucharest is the most important political, economic, cultural and
scientific center of the country. It is crossed by the river Dâmbovita and
is bordered by picturesque lakes on the valley of Colentina. Bucharest is
a city featuring rich vegetation, wide parks, which is why it is called
"garden-city".

Bucharest is a living city with monumental buildings, with outstanding

architectural values, big and interesting museums, theatres, opera
house, exhibition halls, memorial houses, universities, central public and
administrative offices. The Palace of Parliament, for instance, is the
second building in the world in point of size, after the Pentagon. The
capital is also the largest industrial center of Romania, with numerous
factories and plants of all kinds (iron-and-steel, engineering, fine
mechanics, tanning yards, food industry).

Administrative division: 41 counties and Bucharest municipality (with

a county status), 260 towns (of which 57 municipalities), 2,688
communes (with about 13,000 villages).
Main cities: (inhabitants as on 7 January 1992): Constanta (350.581), Iasi
(344.425), Timisoara (334.115), Cluj-Napoca (328.602), Galati (326.141),
Brasov (323.786), Craiova (303.959). Twenty-five cities have a population
of over 100,000, while eight cities exceed 300,000.

3
Ports:
On the Black Sea: Constanta (can take ships of over 150,000 dwt).
Mangalia and Sulina (free port).
On the Danube: Turnu Severin, Turnu Magurele, Giurgiu, Oltenita,
Cernavoda, Braila, Galati, Tulcea (the last three are both river and sea
ports).
The Danube-Black Sea Canal: (64.2 km long) between Cernavoda and
Agigea-Constanta was opened to traffic in 1984. Following the
inauguration in 1992 of the Rhine-Main-Danube Canal, it facilitates
direct connection with the North Sea. It is navigable for river and sea-
going ships of up to 5,000 dwt.

Airports: Bucharest - Otopeni, Constanta - Mihail Kogalniceanu,

Suceava, Arad, Timisoara, Cluj (all for international traffic as well),
Bacau, Baia Mare, Bucharest - Baneasa, Caransebes, Craiova, Deva, Iasi,
Oradea, Satu-Mare, Targu Mures, Tulcea.

National flag:
Tree equal vertical stripes - red, yellow and blue (next to the staff)

National Coat of Arms:

(since 1992)
An eagle holding a cross in its beak and a sword and a scepter in its
claws, as well as the symbols of the five historical provinces - Wallachia,
Moldova, Transylvania, Banat and Dobrogea.

State Anthem:
(since 1990)
"Awaken thee, Romanian, shake off the deadly slumber / The scourge of
inauspicious barbarian tyrannies..."
Lyrics: Andrei Muresan; music: Anton Pann.

National day:
1 December (anniversary of the 1918 union of all Romanians into a single
state).

Form of government:
Republic, according to the Constitution voted by Parliament on 21
November 1991 and validated by referendum on 8 December 1991. The
two-chamber Parliament (the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate),
elected for a four-year term, is the people's supreme representative body
and the sole law-making authority. The president is elected by universal
vote for two four-year terms at the most. The Government, validated by
Parliament, provides general management of public administration.

4
R O M A N I A ’ S P O L I T I C A L E N V I R O N M E N T

With a population of 22 million, Romania is the second most populous

country in Central and Eastern Europe and covers an area of 237,500
square kilometers. It is rich in natural resources-petroleum, timber,
natural gas, coal, iron ore, and salt. Agriculture is a major contributor to
the Romanian economy, accounting for 21 percent of GDP and 20
percent of total employment. Romania's 1999 GNP per capita was
estimated at US$1,520. A different assessment using the PPP indicators
was made by UNDP: $ 6500/year with huge national disparities (an
average of $ 5500 in North Eastern counties and of $ 11,000 in the
capital).

The Romanian political and economic system at the end of the 1980s was
one of the most tightly controlled and centralized in all the former
communist countries. All sectors of the economy were planned and
supervised centrally. Unlike some other neighboring Eastern European
countries, hardly any public or economic initiative was in the hands of
individuals.

Following 40 years of communist rule, Romania experienced a dramatic

regime change in 1989. Free elections were organised (1990, 1992,
1996, 2000), a new democratic constitution was voted and the country
engaged in economic and social reform. It has applied for membership to
the EU, started negotiations in 1999 but the current government
ambition to become a member in 2007 looks to optimistic for most
analysts.

Despite real progresses, Romania continued to face deepening economic

recession, rising unemployment, and mounting problems. Economic
difficulties were reflected in an increase in poverty, with over one third of
the population living below the poverty line.

Overall, signs of a cautious economic recovery are emerging: an

estimated GDP increase of about 4 percent in 2001; a falling inflation
rate, and steadily increasing foreign currency reserves due to an
increase in exports and lower external debt service.

From 1990 to 1996, Romania was governed by a center left party (named
FDSN and then PDSR, actual PSD), gathering support from former
administrative elites and practicing a cautious reform policy. From 1996
to 2000, a new center right coalition, the CDR came to power promising
ample reform programs but finally loosing its pace in internal disputes.
The November 2000 elections brought back to power the center-left
Romanian Party of Social Democracy (PDSR) against the backdrop of

5
worsening social and economic conditions for the Romanian population
in the second half of the 1990s.

While some analyst believe that this would imply slowing down reform
programs considering a conservative electorate reform fatigue, others
think that a more cohesive and organized political grouping, such as the
PDSR (now PSD), would have greater success in achieving Romanians
broadly shared goals of poverty reduction and accession to the European
Union. All agree that whoever is ruling the country, there are hard
choices and huge efforts to be made to restructure the economy and
increase the effectiveness and the responsiveness of public institutions.

Poverty and Inequality in Romania 1996 1997 1998 1999

GDP growth * 3.9 -6.1 -5.4 -3.2
Poverty headcount (percent) 19.8 30.8 33.8 41.2
Total number of poor (TOO) 4,488 6,945 7,609 9,252
Consumption shortfall as percent of 22.7 25.7 27 -
poverty line
Extreme poverty headcount 5.1 9.5 11.7 16.6
(percent)
*
At market prices, calculated based on prices in 1993
Source: National Statistics Institute and Romania Integrated Household Survey

Actu Accelerated Slow Reform

al Reform
Macroeconomic Prospects
2000 200 200 200 20 20 20
1 2 3 01 02 03
GDP at market prices, real 1.6 4.0 5.0 5.0 3.4 0.5 -
growth (%) 2.0
Current Account Balance as (% -3.8 -4.2 -4.8 -5.8 - - -
of GDP) 4.9 5.5 6.1
Consolidated Budget Deficit (% -3.7 -3.7 -3.0 -2.5 - - -
of GDP) 3.8 4.3 5.0
Consumer Price Index (% 45.7 30. 22. 15. 33. 32. 38.
change) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Source: World Bank staff estimates

In October 1999, the EU commission produced its annual progress

report outlining its belief that Romania has made progress with regard to
EU entry. This was followed by the adoption of a Partnership Agreement
outlining the short and medium term priorities for Romania’s

6
membership preparations. At the Helsinki summit in December 1999, the
EU invited Romania to begin negotiations with the EU Commission.

Hence, the drive for European integration has become to Romania the
focus for democratic and economic reforms and the reference for
defining policies legitimacy.

The political obstacles to EU entry are the least problematic. Romania

has already made progress in addressing potential problems such as the
rights for the ethnic Hungarian minority. More recent priorities laid out
by the EU include improving the situation for large numbers of orphans
in the country and improving the situation for the Rroma (Gypsies).

It is the economic issues and their social consequences that remain

critical for Romania at present. Romania’s efforts are outlined in a
medium term development strategy. The measures included in this
strategy aim to lead to a functional market economy, compliant with EU
standards. The following strategic objectives are set:

 ensure economic growth through increased domestic and foreign

investments
 implement policies compliant with EU standards
 devise a business environment fostering market competition,
stable, transparent rules and low transaction costs
 improve public utilities
 implement long term strategies for reducing environment related
risks

The role of civil society and NGOs is considered by many as crucial for
the accomplishment of these objectives. The European democratic model
will contain many, but not only, elements of participatory democracy; it
is designed as a model for cooperation and allows room to formulate new
types of participation, while retaining many elements of representative
democracy.

Brussels, 25 April 2001

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on Organized Civil
Society and European Governance

EP Invites the Romanian Government to adopt clear

requirements for the NGO’s activity and to establish a
monitoring body, which should be responsible for licensing,
monitoring and registering the NGOs; it should also report to
the Parliament and to the Ministry of Interior

7
 Romanian NGOs work in a large country that is ridden with
major economic and social problems, widespread poverty,
weak social, health and education system, minorities with
many problems, corruption and serious environmental
pollution. The precarious political, economic and social
framework and the many needs throughout the country, give
the NGOs and the public and private sectors major
responsibilities.

It appears to be a matter of priority that NGOs should play an

active, well coordinated role in local community development,
in initiatives that promote public participation (currently a
minor part of NGO work, in reshaping local and national public
policy…)

Third meeting of the EU-Romania Joint Consultative

Committee, Brussels, 18 May 2001

L E G A L E N V I R O N M E N T

The former Law 21/1924 regulating the sector has been replaced by
Government Ordinance no.26/2000 setting up new principles aimed to
facilitate NGOs activities. The new legislation fastens the registration
process, establishes a central registry for NGOs and specifically grants
NGOs the right to establish subsidiaries, to carry out commercial
activities.

Ordinance 26/2000 also provides for the status of Public Benefit for
associations and foundations. As providers of services of public interest
(or benefit) these associations and foundations require the
acknowledgement of their ability to ensure these services while
observing certain standards. This status also opens the door for such
associations to apply for public subsidies. The status of public benefit
association has to be granted by the government and is related to certain
performance indicators and standards set by relevant ministerial
commissions. Not all foundations or associations providing public
services are applying for this status, which is not compulsory.

Legal or natural persons seeking to develop public interest oriented

activities, or activities in the interest of local communities, or any form of
non-profit activity, can set up associations and foundations in the
conditions set forth by the new legal framework (OG nr.26/2001)

8
The associations and foundations established under GO 26/2001 are
legal persons with non-profit goals. Political parties, labor unions and
religious organizations are subject to the provisions of specific laws.

Freedom of association is encouraged by the new legal framework

through the elimination of the previously existing requirement for a
ministerial approval. A minimum number of twenty-one persons was
required for the setting up of an association until 2000, under previous
law no.21/1924. The new ordinance has diminished the necessary
number of individuals to form an association to three.

An association is an organization with at least three members (natural or

legal persons), called associates, who agree to bring their contribution
(resources, work or knowledge) to public interest, community interest of
to their own non-patrimonial interests.

A foundation is an organization established by one or more natural or

legal persons, called founders, who commit a specific patrimony to a
specific public interest or community interest goal.

Two or more associations or foundations can set up a federation. A

federation has its own legal personality and it operates like a non-
patrimonial association.

As for the internal organization, each association or foundation has the

right to devise its own system of management and administration. The
Romanian legislation specifies that the supreme decision body is the
General Assembly in the association and respectively the Administration
Board in the foundation.

In short the new law:

 provides clear and easier patterns for registering NGOs

 allows NGOs to develop economic activities
 eliminates red tape
 makes room for further cooperation between NGOs, local
authorities and third parties
 grants public utility status to qualified NGOs – so called Public
Benefit Organizations or PBOs – providing public services, and
makes them eligible for state subsidies, and partnership with the
state administration

It is worth mentioning that the OG 26/2000 was adopted on the base of a

legal proposal devised by NGO experts working along Parliamentary or

9
public administration officials and finally adopted by the Ministry of
Justice

Law 34/1998 also opens the door to state subsidies for NGOs providing
social assistance services.

The fiscal duties include the obligation to declare one’s assets, taxable
income and, as the case may be, due taxes and to record in the
accounting book, and pay at the legal terms, the income taxes and any
other taxes required by law.

The NGOs revenues taken into account when establishing the taxable
profits are only the revenues resulting from business activities carried
out for the purpose of obtaining profit. Consequently, donations, resulted
from sponsorships or grants from foreign donors, are not calculated
when it comes to determine the taxable profits. There is a 25 % profit
quota to be paid for the taxable profit.

The NGOs are not payers of VAT (value added tax) unless their economic
activities generate more than ROL 100 million turnovers. Furthermore,
NGOs may require the reimbursement of VAT paid for goods and services
financed from donors.

The imported goods coming from donations or directly financed from

non-reimbursable loans from charity organizations or international
institutions, are exempt from customs duties. The only requirement that
needs to be met for obtaining these fiscal facilities is that the donations
will not be used for electoral campaigns or activities that may pose a
threat to national security. On the other hand, goods exempt from
customs duties must be used solely for the purpose for which they were
imported. In case their destination is changed, customs duties will have
to be paid. The exemption does not apply to alcohol and tobacco based
products as well as cars.

10
Civil society in Romania today

2
Chapter

All facts and figures

What does civil society mean in Romania today? A foreign observer

would be struck by its overwhelming presence in the public discourse.
Most politicians refer to civil society when they want to bash a
competitor or claim support for one of their policies. Most political
parties and programs have ambitious and vague commitments to
collaboration with civil society, open dialogue… The media misses no
opportunity to call in the concept, and many public opinion leaders,
who elsewhere would simply present themselves as writers,
professors or sociologists, proudly design themselves as voices of the
civil society. On the other hand, after a few months spent here, the
same observer would wonder why are there so few community-based
initiatives, why people in neighborhoods don’t gather in associations
to improve local conditions, why many registered NGOs have no
activity to speak of. Some have gone as far as to speak of the
existence of the civil society as a virtual existence, a space of symbols
for which many actors compete but in which no one truly accepts to
embark on cooperation with others1.

Is civil society the sum of its parts, or the people, actions, ideas and
frameworks devised by a number of NGOs? A group of people sharing
common non-profit goals and uniting
their efforts to express these goals would certainly correspond to the
definition most sociologists would accept for the term "civil society". A
more coherent, established group would probably evolve into some

1
Dan DUNGANU, Conştiinţă etnică, conştiinţă civică şi integrare europeană. In Starea
societtăţii româneşti după zece ani de tranziţie.. Bucharest, Expert, 2001.

11
sort of association or foundation, based on the legal provisions. Still,
in Romania as elsewhere, the information available on the civil society
sector depends to a large extent on the meaning given to the term.
NGOs have different natures; they may be labor unions, foundations,
associations, movements, councils and federations. On the borderline
there are also such organizations as political parties or cooperatives,
pursuing similar goals with the mainstream NGOs and serving as an
intermediary actor between public, private and civic institutions. Most
communities that share certain goals and values, but which are not
gathered within the framework of an NGO, would probably be also
referred to as "civil society", in general terms, and become a leitmotiv
for political or media discourses seeking to mobilize support.

The reality of the civil society is somewhere in-between these

perceptions. Undeniably, the development of the civil society sector in
Romania has become a major issue for sociologists, politologists and
citizens alike. The very fact that it is so frequently debated indicates
that it is in a process of redefinition.

So who does belong to civil society? Is it a self-referential status, an

imagined community, where members who acknowledge common
interests and values accept to be considered a group? Does such a
group have to perform a specific set of roles and then be recognized
by another instance?

During the communist era, social engineering policies meant that

most civic movements were under political control. There was no such
thing as an independent civic movement.
Labor unions, for instance, were controlled by communist party
leaders. Most analysts agree that Romania did not have the type of
organised movement of dissidence led by intellectuals with deep
social roots, comparable with the 77 movement in Czecholoslovakia or
to Solidarnosc; dissidents were either individuals with narrow
agendas or mass labor movements with social agendas such as the
miners strike in 1977. Because they posed no organized political or
social challenge to the regime, a number of NGOs were allowed to
exist, some of them even with international affiliation. These were
mostly benign in nature, involving simple gatherings of traditional
craftsmen, philatelists, sport clubs, or associations for people with
disabilities. Some of the most numerous associations, such as the
Writers’ Union, were influent enough to negotiate privileges for their
members, but their autonomy was reduced. On the other hand, in an
attempt to boost its legitimacy, the regime was continuously
mobilizing ordinary citizens in mass events, under the banner of
regional organizations (youth movements, ethnic minorities

12
associations, craftsmen or professional association, cultural groups…).
Western analysts such as Claude Karnouh or Catherine Verdery have
suggested that the communist regime in Romania managed to create
some sort of public legitimacy through a combination of nationalism,
privileges for an isolated elite and social engineering. Intellectual
figures such as Andrei Pleşu and the so called Noica circle thought
that the role of the elites was to promote a combination of artistic
freedom with apathy and indifference towards the political and social
environment, a Romanian version of the ivory tower issue revealed by
Julien Benda in the thirties.

Ex: Cenaclul Flacãra events: a communist perspective on civil society?

In the 1970’s, the Romanian political regime decided to channel in the

nationalist energies and to tacitly promote the autarchic, seemingly
liberal, line adopted by Ceausescu, the communist leader, while
defusing social tensions and mobilizing the youth. The result was the
extremely popular Cenaclul Flacãra organized by Adrian Pãunescu, a
poet close to the circles of power.
Tens of thousands of people joined in the gatherings, which took
place in all major cities and became more and more frequent every
year. During these gatherings, the young people were encouraged to
sing, dance, create poems or literature, and some of them became
popular enough to perform in similar events organized around the
country. The Cenaclul Flacara prizes and notoriety were important
enough to draw hopes and many people started to write to the
organizer asking him for help or support in local matters.
Furthermore, half of the money collected during the gatherings was
shared by the performers, which soon made them earn more than the
average minister. In 1985, the communist regime fearful of the ever-
growing popularity of this movement decided to halt it. For many of
those who participated in it or lived at the time, Cenaclul Flacara was
a genuine associative movement, providing support for social and
cultural exchanges to a great number of people. For its critics, the
fact that it was controlled by the communist leaders and the very
clear boundaries imposed to it (no political activism besides the
patriotic line) turned it into a vehicle for manipulating the youth, with
no genuine positive role.

After the fall of the communist regime, which in Romania made 1300
victims, civil society was first represented by artists, or dissident
intellectuals, well known public figures who contributed to confer
legitimacy to the change of regime and who voiced the people’s
choice for democracy. The first National Salvation Front groups,
organized in December 1989 throughout the country, were genuine

13
gatherings of people representing labor unions, citizens’ movements
or local personalities. They, too, claimed to represent the civil society.
A few months later, these groups were either passed under the direct
influence of the central administration, which used them to allocate
resources or implement policies, or were dissolved. The quid pro quo
of the civil society identity in Romania started in 1990; while some
claimed that the new regime was democratic in nature and
represented the interests of all categories of citizens, others started to
define civil society in opposition with the administration and its
policies. Newly established NGOs under Law 21/1924 (which was
never abolished by the communist regime and remained in place until
the year 2000) followed the same pattern of positioning; some lobbied
the administration, building up foreign (or communist) inspired
organizations (such as labor unions or professional organisations).
Others opted for creating grassroots movements, pleading for social
change or a reduced role of the state, or traditional institutions, as a
necessary step for progress. In short, while some tried to extend the
legitimacy of their ivory tower in which they said they have preserved
the values of democracy during the communist era, others sought to
redefine and lead the social movements and public agenda hitherto
controlled by the communist party.

Obviously, when people refer to civil society in Romania they mean

different things. For some, civil society is thriving and it is a force that
must be reckoned with. For others, it is continuously under the threat
of apathy, lack of resources, state interventionism or indifference,
media bashing or media hype.

In fact, the story of the Romanian civil society is the story of those
analysts who seek to promote their specific assessment of the sector
and to impose their interpretation in the public arena. It is not a
coincidence that most recent papers and actions related to the civil
society sector in Romania, which have sparkled public debates, have
been defined in terms of identity or belonging, rather than in terms of
qualitative parameters2. This has led to a predictable analytical dead-
end, with lots of energy wasted in vain efforts to establish one single
legitimate vision of the civil society sector.

Example:
For some, an NGO such as the Manfred Worner Association,
chaired by a State Secretary for Foreign Affairs and promoting NATO
integration with mostly the support of state funds, is not
representative for the civil society but for political lobbies. For others,
the Strategic alliance of business associations, gathering

2
See Defining the non-profit sector, research by Dragos Seulean and Carmen Epure, 1998.

14
chambers of commerce, animal breeders’ associations or regional
employers’ associations, is nothing more than a grouping of
commercial interests... even though, on the other hand, some of its
organizations, taken individually (the Romanian Association of Women
Managers, for instance), are considered to be a part of the civil
society.

Our approach is different and will seek to place the debate in terms of
institutional analysis, using facts and figures within the framework of
the organizational assessment, and reflecting opposite views,
regarded as strategic indicators of the real issues affecting the sector.

In order to clarify the current state of the debate we will magnify the
main assumptions made by current analysts who have focused their
attention on civil society. Our analysis of the civil society will be firstly
an analysis of the existing analysis on Romanian civil society and
secondly an assessment of its current dynamics.

In short, for most NGO analysts involved in NGOs, civil society is a

new phenomenon in Romania. This approach, which we will label
progressist for the purpose of this
analysis, states that the whole civil society phenomenon is related to
the progress towards the Western-type modernity in Romania. The
emergence of a non-profit sector in Romania is the result of relatively
recent social processes3. In this view, the traditional ways of
organization in local communities, characterized by rural or parochial
values, did not provide sufficient incentives for the development of a
true civil society. The role of the church and of the communist era
associations is specifically mentioned as a factor slowing down the
development of a modern civil society. This approach, which has
strong intellectual roots in all the social and political theories related
to modernity, maintains that the development of civil society is bound
upon the acceptance of Western standards in the social organizations.
In political theory, the supporters of this approach to civil society are
inspired by the end of history perspective (first developed by the
American politologist F. Fukuyama), which states mainly that the
liberal Western model of economic and social organization has no
longer any real competitor, and has become the ultimate referent for
defining progress.As to the civil society, the supporters of this
approach believe that its level of development is indicated by the level
of its autonomy from state institutions and that diversity and
pluralism are more important than maintaining traditional cultural or

15
social ties. In short, an enlightened minority leads the society
towards it’s rediscovered future.

The opposite view, hold by the more conservative analysts, states that
civil society is not a novel concept in Romania, but that it has been
captured and diverted from its legitimate meaning by a group of
cronies responding to imported incentives. The intellectual roots of
this perspective is to be found in the Hegelian belief that history is on
the move and that different societies have different values and social
role allocation mechanisms at distinct moments of their history. In
short, this approach holds that cultural and social institutions are
providers of social roles in interdependence with those created by
state institutions and different combinations of these roles reflect
different cultures4. For those analysts whom we will call
contextualists for the sake of this argument, the actual model of civil
society inspired by Western values is promoted by a group of
gatekeepers, a clique of notorious public opinion leaders who refuse
to acknowledge the legitimacy of the genuine local communities based
associations. In this view, progress is an utopy is it doesn’t rely upon
local agenda.

These distinctions matter to civil society development in Romania

because they help foster the debate on contentious issues, draw lines
between coalitions of interests, and define goals and agendas for NGO
representatives. On everything, from source of funding to agenda
setting and relations with state authorities, those who analyze the role
of NGOs will find huge differences between the progressists and the
contextualists. It is not easy to assess the impact of these differences
because they contribute to define and represent interests of
communities competing for financial resources, increased social roles
and notoriety.

Ex:
One defining moment for the development of civil society in Romania
was, undoubtedly, the event that took place in the University Square
in 1990, a few months after the fall of the communist regime. The
event started with a group of students accusing the government of
representing the interests of communist cronies and of being
uncommitted to true reform. The movement was soon joined by newly

4
Dan DUNGANU, Conştiinţă etnică, conştiinţă civică şi integrare europeană. In Starea
societtăţii româneşti după zece ani de tranziţie.. Bucharest, Expert, 2001.

16
established NGOs and associations, by representatives of labor
unions, intellectual circles, artists. Its political thrust was obvious but
the great majority of those attending the on going meeting were
actually using the event to voice their own concerns and local agenda:
their religious, cultural and social objectives, and also to organize
themselves in structured groups, taking advantage of the media and
public attention. Furthermore, artists, musicians and different bands
would play music or read poetry to the thousands of people, which
added a cultural dimension to the event. To add an ironic hint to the
complexity of this event with many faces, most songs and poems that
were presented to the enthusiastic public had been written and
popularized during the communist era in the Cenaclul Flacara
gatherings (see above) led by Ceausescu's unrepentant court poet,
Adrian Pãunescu. In June 1990, after the May 20 elections, the new
government decided to close the event, on grounds that it was
disturbing the public order and made use of force to evacuate the
participants. Since then, for many analysts, for the progressists in
the terms of this research, the University Square remained a defining
moment in the crystallization of the new civil society in Romania, and
in the development of NGOs such as the GDS (Group of Social
Dialogue, editor of 22 Magazine), or Asociatia 16-21 Decembrie). For
others, for the contextualists, in the terms of this research, it was a
marginal movement, representing the interests of a minority with
little public legitimacy seeking to forcibly impose social changes,
antagonizing the real civil society.

Two approaches of civil society in Romania

Contextualists
Who belongs to civil society
All sorts of traditional groups with strong social and public legitimacy

Who definitely doesn’t belong to the true civil society

Intellectuals with marginal agendas, foreign intermediary support
organizations, NGOs promoting liberal policies out of touch with local
realities

What does civil society stand for

The representation of current cultural and social values

The main roles of civil society

17
Social representation; creating opportunities to express legitimate
interests

What is it that contextualists think about themselves

Voices of reason. Voices of common sense. They have the rational
understanding of current state of facts at the given time

What is it that contextualists think about progressists

Voices of gatekeepers eager to import and represent narrow agendas
for their own sake

Sources of inspiration
Church, army, ethnicity, cultural and historical heritage, recent past

Progressists

Who belongs to civil society

All sorts of people

Who definitely doesn’t belong to the true civil society

Conservatives with conservative agendas, communist era inspired
organizations, NGOs affiliated to conservative politicians, to state
institutions or private interests

What does civil society stand for

Diversity and pluralism.

The main roles of civil society

Social change and autonomy from state or private interests. Enhance
the number of existing options for citizen seeking representation for
their interests.

What is it that progressists think about themselves

Voices of reason. Voice of truth. Voices of legitimate concerns

What is it that progressists think about contextualists

Voices of parochial, authoritarian, short sighted undemocratic
interests

Sources of inspiration
Western style democracies

The main sources of information on the Romanian NGO sector are the
National Institute for Statistics and Economic Studies and the annual

18
report published by the Civil Society Development foundation (CSDF).
Other organisation such as CENTRAS also gather a lot of information
of the NGO sector . Other sources of information are to be found in
the public administration (i.e. Ministry of Finance's collection of
balance sheets), but then again, many organizations pursuing strictly
commercial goals are adopting the legal form of an association or
foundation. The "ONGbit", the NGO database built by the CSDF
through national surveys, has collected data on 6024 organizations. If
you want to know more about facts and figures concerning the NGO
sector collected by CSDF, please contact www.fdsc.ro

From 1991 to 1995 the civil society sector experienced a steady

development. Censuses showed that the number of registered NGOs
reached 23,000. Nevertheless, since the starting point was very low,
the impact of the sector on the whole of the economy was still limited.
Figures from 1995 show that the non profit sector activities accounted
for less than 1% of the GDP, anywhere between $ 90 to 180 million
per year5. The number of full-time employees was also evaluated at
12,000 in the Romanian Statistical yearbook of 1997, and at 37,000 in
a report of 1995. These figures do not reflect the full extent of the
sector because of the very large effort of volunteering and part time
work. According to some researches, this effort would in fact be
equivalent to another 46,000 full time employees, which puts the non-
profit organizations in Romania ahead of the largest local private
companies in terms of employment.

As an employer and as a business activities producer, the Romanian

NGO sector is one of the lowest in the world. The overall 22-country
average is close to 5% of total employment, with a high of 12,6% of
nonagricultural employment in the Netherlands and a 0,6% score in
Romania. Additionally, the Romanian NGO sector is lagging behind
most Eastern and Central European countries.

Of the nonprofit activities in Romania, those related to culture and

entertainment are by far the most important (with 34% of
employment). This reflects primarily the heritage of the communist
regime, when cultural and recreational activities were encouraged as
a way of defusing social tensions. For some, this reflects the strong
regional traditions of associative movements and their links with
traditional communities. An NGO such as Fundaţia Culturală Română,
a state sponsored organization led by prominent public opinion
leaders who have built their reputation in communist times, offers

5
Global civil society: dimensions of the non-profit sector. Chapter 17. John Hopkins Centre
for Civil society, 1999.

19
support for various cultural activities, particularly for Romanian
literature and writers; it is considered by progressists critics as an
obsolete organization. Other NGOs active in the cultural field have
been initiated by intellectuals or artists eager to develop vehicles for
promoting social or cultural change; the Artexpo Foundation, active in
the organization of cultural fairs in Bucharest, is representative for
this innovative approach.

Education is another field where the development of NGOs has been

rapid. The Romanian higher education system faced increasing
demands as a consequence of social change and mobility. The boom of
private higher education institutions has involved intensive
negotiation with state authorities in order to set quality standards for
the sector. In 2000, more than 50,000 students were enrolled in
higher education programs provided by NGOs, generating revenues of
more than $ 20 million. It is one of the sectors where the role of NGOs
is the most visible: from the Spiru Haret University, with its 22,000
students, private television network, and private editing house to the
prestigious New Europe College, hosting no more than ten researches
per year, NGOs have filled a gap and have become legitimate partners
in the debate on the future of educational services. But then again,
one can notice that while some NGOs have sought to provide a
number of services to the largest possible amount of people who had
been previously denied access to public education, others have
focused on a limited number of beneficiaries. The difference of
perspective reflects a different understanding of the role of education
in the country.

The presence of NGOs in social services is also noticeable. The social

protection system in Romania experienced rapid changes after 1989,
but in the absence of a structured managerial policy the actual level
of social protection has dropped. The lack of coherence, the side
effects of economic reform and the legal system’s development, have
prompted numerous occasions for emergency intervention. In many
cases, NGOs have been better prepared to intervene than state
institutions. Extreme economic and social burden have brought NGOs
in contact with critical social realities. More than 21% of the NGO
sector’s employment in Romania is involved in social services. NGOs
active in social protection have diverse policies: from Caritas
Romania, which brings with it an international experience in
providing humanitarian support to child protection oriented NGOs
(883 NGOs declared they were active in this field in 1997). Critics say
than NGOs such as Vier Pfoten, which is an active promoter of animal
rights, do more harm than good by ignoring ordinary citizen’s needs
and deliberately contributing to the deterioration of the country’s
international image in order to increase the amount of external

20
support for their activities. Others maintain that social progress is
bound to the acceptance of all grievances as legitimate.

The recent past has influenced the development of the sector.

Most analysts, whether conservative of progressists, agree that civil
society is in a period of transition (some say crisis) in Romania,
following the initial 1991-1995 boom. Of course, the reasons and the
nature of this transition are strongly debated.

The 1996 elections brought to power a Christian Democrat

coalition and a new president who was supported by a civic movement
(the Civic Alliance – Alianta Civica). Initial expectations were great
and most local and foreign analysts believed that the new
administration would considerably increase its support for the
development of civil society and NGOs. Many prominent NGO leaders
joined the new administration, as presidential advisors, ambassadors
and government officials. There seemed to be a general consensus
that new policies and a new approach would benefit to the whole civil
society sector. In short, following this perspective, since democracy
had prevailed in Romania and the political ystem was stable and
allowed for the democratic transfer of power (the elections in 2000
confirmed these mechanisms), the stakes were lower and civil society
was firmly established. For the new government officials, democracy
was finally established for good and the NGO sector had in a sense
accomplished its role in supporting the transition to a new
government and civic education, which had led to their electoral
success. On numerous occasions this shortsighted view was expressed
in public. "Romanians don't need any further civic education
programs. They have learned the rules of democracy and their public
consciousness has evolved. There is no need today for social or
political frameworks promoting the role of civil society and citizens'
participation in NGO. The real issue for NGOs today is to tell people
more about the communist totalitarian regime." (Internal document,
Department of Public Information, 1997, Secretary of State Bogdan
Teodorescu)

This naive identification of the NGO sector with the struggle against
totalitarianism has had damaging consequences. In this view, there
was little or no interest in promoting
the role of NGOs as alternative institutions for political and economic
reform since the establishment of a new democratic regime was the
key for progress. Many local NGOs that had secured international
funding for civic education programs found themselves unable to
implement them for lack of public administration support. In 1997, a
secured grant for a communication campaign promoting local

21
initiatives and training programs for laid off state employees never
got official approval and support. A Television program aiming to
promote the role of small entrepreneurs and to provide basic
economic knowledge on large scale was rapidly replaced with a talk
show hosting prominent politicians sharing their views on reform to a
public growing skeptical by the day6 .The tendency of politicians to
think of NGOs as vectors for their policies rather than as autonomous
allies is still continuing. Conservatives and liberals alike blame each
other for the situation.

For major foreign donors too, the government elected in 1996 seemed
to offer a viable alternative for the development of civil society. Most
donors considered that the electoral success of the Christian
Democrats and the election of the new President, Emil
Constantinescu, guaranteed the development of a solid civil society
and proved its maturity. New programs were designed in partnership
with governmental institutions. Most EU and new contracted PHARE
programs involved strong partnerships with public institutions and
very little funding was left available for exclusive NGO initiatives.
Strategic cooperation with public institutions was seen as paramount
for the development of the civil society and NGOs with little or no
political clout could not benefit from major funding sources. The Soros
Foundation, for instance, devoted most of its resources previously
operated for democracy and human rights projects to a single
program devised in cooperation with the Ministry of Justice. Small,
local, grassroots projects were neglected for ambitious public
institutions reform goals. Little money was left for large-scale projects
benefiting to numerous people.

Another problem appeared with the migration to public administration

positions of prominent NGOs leaders. After 1996 many politicians
made a willing confusion between the support they had received from
some successful NGOs and the civil society sector as a
whole. Notorious NGOs such as Alianta Civica or LADO (League for
the Defense of Human Rights) made bold statements about the
triumph of democracy after the 1996 elections and the role of NGOs
in supporting the new government. The new president, Emil
Constantinescu, was himself supported by Alianta Civica as the
candidate of the Romanian Democratic Convention. Public opinion
leaders assumed official or unofficial counseling roles with the new
administration. The notoriety of such NGO leaders and their access to
media coverage increased dramatically after 1996, mostly in actions

6
Project by IDEE. Feţele schimbării. TVR. Producător Angela Avram. Moderator Carmen
Bendovski.

22
or issues related to political stands. Slowly, a public opinion trend
began to take roots, identifying civil society with the political leaders
of the moment. When dissatisfied citizens lost faith in the ruling
government, and the public opinion turned sour, a part of these
feelings where redirected against some NGOs. Words such as Civil
society, reform and civil society leaders lost their positive attributes
and many people started to question the rationale of colluding
interests between political stands and civil society. That has reduced
both the legitimacy of established NGO and NGO leaders and people's
availability to get involved in civic movements. Furthermore, the same
NGO leaders that got involved in public administration after 1996 left
behind their NGOs, which lost (albeit temporary) their best, most
efficient, most notorious and most skilled managers. The human
resources drain contributed to the deterioration of the public
legitimacy of some institutions. After the 2000 elections, the
phenomenon has continued, but on the other side. Cultural
personalities, NGO leaders and intellectuals have joined the rank of
public institutions and of the new administration.

The elections of 2000 have brought back in power a government led

by the PDSR (now PSD), a social democrat party. While the elections
were fair, and transition of power went smoothly, most analysts were
struck by the very low results achieved by the Christian Democrat
coalition (under 5% and no Parliamentary representation) and by the
importance of the extremist vote (the PRM, Greater Romania Party
has become the second most important party). Disaffected youth and
Western Romania voters, which were mostly considered to hold liberal
reformist views, placed their hopes in populist leaders. There was
renewed talk on the role of civil society. It became media fashionable
again to conclude that since politicians have not been able to deliver
sound results to the public, the civil society was to blame for it’s lack
of response to people’s needs. Conservative voices accused the former
liberal government to have deteriorated and manipulated citizens
trust with fake issues promoted by some NGOs out of touch with local
agenda. Progressists voices accused the conservatives of having
refused to cooperate with civil society, driving it into impotency, and
of slowing down Romania’s progress this way.

Other analysts offer a different interpretation of the causes of the

actual debate on how to improve civil society: for them, no Romanian
government or representative group of NGOs has been able to
patiently and eloquently devise advocacy programs for increasing the
amount of foreign and internal resources of all kinds available for the
NGO sector. It is thus, the absence of sectorial policy that is to blame
for the resource drought.

23
In fact, civil society is neither thriving nor impotent in Romania. Of
course, the game of defining its identity is still open. The blaming
game, my civil society is better than your civil society is a natural part
of it. The competition for resources, for control, for notoriety, is a
natural characteristic of human communities’ diverse interests. The
debate between progressists and contextualists, as we have called
them, is specifically Romanian but reflects broader international
debates on cultural and social models. The important thing is that
there are increased opportunities for Romanian citizens to express
these interests, voice them, defend them and negotiate for them.

The actual dimension of the Romanian civil society sector may be

reduced in comparison with other countries, but it probably reflects
the reality of existing human resources, ideas, and finances available
in the country right now. One has yet to come with a perfect model for
civil society in a society in transition. The natural process of social
policies in democracies means that the disappearance of an NGO is
not dramatic per se, if it is the result of its irrelevancy or management
complacency.

Civil society is neither thriving nor impotent in Romania. It can be

improved. It can evolve. It can change. It can impact public policies
and citizens’ own lives with more or less effect. It matters. It is
working.

24
 NGO distribution by degree of county poverty

Poor
10%
Below average
11%
Rich
41%

Average development
18%

Over average
20%

NGO distribution by historical regions plus Bucharest City

Moldova
15%
Dobrogea Transilvania
3% 33%

Bucharest
19%

Muntenia Crisana
7% Oltenia Banat 11%
5% 7%

25
 NGO distribution by goegraphical regions plus Bucharest City

North East Central

13% 18%
South East
6%

Bucharest
North West
19%
24%

South
South West West
6%
5% 9%

NGO distribution by types of organization

Association or
Foundation Unions Other
3% 4%

Foundations
35% Associations
58%

26
 Structure of income in the non-profit sector

Dividends
Government contracts
4%
Romanian donations 1%
8% Foreign donations
36%
Government subsidies
6%

Individual donations
9%

Member dues
11%

Sponsorship Client contracts

13% 12%

NGO distribution by income sources (money) and fund raising practices

58,3
60,0

50,5
50,0

39,5
40,0
33,7
32,0

30,0
24,4

20,0 17,8
15,3
11,9
11,1 10,8 11,6
9,8
8,3
10,0 7,9 7,4
5,3
3,7
2,0
1,1

0,0
Foreign Client Sponsorship Member dues Individual Government Romanian Dividends Government Other
donations contracts donations subventions donations contracts sources

% of overall income % of NGO

27
 NGO distribution by income tranches

80,0
70,6

70,0

60,0

50,0

39,3
40,0
32,4
% ONG
30,0
%Total venituri

16,8 18,1
20,0
11,0
9,5

10,0
0,0 0,0 0,1 1,6 0,7

0,0
Pana la 100.000 lei 100.000-999.999 1.000.000-9.999.999 10.000.000-99.999.999 100.000.000- Peste 1.000.000.000
999.999.999

NGO distribution by expenses

70,0 65,5

60,0

50,0

40,0 36,0
31,4

30,0 % of NGO

18,7 % of overall expenses

18,3
20,0
14,4
10,9

10,0
2,1
0,0 0,1 1,4 1,3

0,0
Up to ROL 100.000 100.000-999.999 1.000.000-9.999.999 10.000.000- 100.000.000- Over 1.000.000.000
99.999.999 999.999.999

28
 NGO distribution by residential areas

Urban - county capitals

Rural Urban 76%
10% 90%

Urban - other than

county capitals
14%

Structure of NGO expenses in 1997

Personnel expenses
25% Other expenses
21%
Banking and insurance
expenses
1%

Donations to legal
persons
8%
Donations to natural
persons Operational expenses
5% Capital expenses 25%
15%

HUMAN RESOURCES IN NGOs

Not available 22%

Only volunteers 16%

29
Paid staff available 62 %

Paid staff structure:

 FTE and volunteers 2%

 only FTE 3%

 only FTE and part time paid staff 7%

 only paid part time staff 12%

 FTE, paid part time staff and volunteers 13%

 only paid part time staff and volunteers 25%

Types of NGO beneficiaries

Organization members
only
10%

Not only organization

members
90%

30
Resources and policies

3
Chapter

3.1 WHAT IS AT STAKE? MONEY OR POLICIES?

From 1990 to 1996 the level of funding for the Romanian NGO sector
was steady and in pace with the institutional development. One estimate
for 1995 put the level of funding at around $190 million for that year7.
Most of this money, i.e. around two thirds of it, came from foreign
donors, private or governmental. However, since 1997, the level of
funding has diminished abruptly while the needs and structure of the
NGO sector experienced a mutation.

In short, major donors drastically reduced their grants:

 the EU suspended a two million EURO grant designated for civil
society in 1997-1998
 the USAID Democracy Network program ceased its funding of
NGOs in 1997.
 the Soros Foundation redesigned its funding philosophy, and put
an end to its Open, travel, publishing, and civil society grants in
1997.
 no other major donors started to operate in Romania. For
comparison, the Trust Fund established with $ 75 million by a
group of major donors (Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers,
Soros) started to operate in Slovakia and Poland but not in
Romania.

7
Dan Petrescu, World Bank NGO stock taking in Romania, 1998.

31
Everybody agrees that the main reasons for this change of funding
policies seem to be political (but no one agrees what policy is to blame
and what is at stake). Hence, the debate on the reduced role of foreign
funding has been channeled by several actors who were not sharing the
same approach on the role of civil society in contemporary Romania.

3.2 GOALS AND POLICIES – BUILDING CONSISTENCY OR

SEARCHING DIVERSITY

Foreign donors’ policies and approaches reflect their strategic approach

and their specific interpretation of the role of civil society. It is naïve to
believe that these approaches are consistent and create a single
legitimate model for a functioning civil society in Romania. On the other
hand, most donors insist that long term funding strategies must involve:
 representative NGOs with established reputation
 grass-roots, accountable, result oriented projects
 effective cooperation between all actors involved
 strategic cooperation between donors in order to devise a coherent
pattern of policies
 sustainable programs that can both respond to the objectives of
donors organizations (i.e.: European acquis…) and evolve towards
financial autonomy

Experience has shown that a few characteristics of sound funding

policies include
 long term on the ground presence by the organization, with key
staff having in-depth knowledge of the country and expertise
 local personnel involved in key management positions
 long term assistance strategies

Obviously some of these objectives collide and there is no easy answer

and no easy balance between them, which offers the opportunity for
Romanian local NGO experts to promote their own agenda of funding
policies.

Established NGOs with great notoriety and influence are mostly based in
Bucharest and sometimes gathered around a cluster of experts whose
interests reflect the desire to represent successful stories in civil society
development. These experts plead for a growing legitimacy for civil

32
society representative leaders as the necessary step towards acquiring
more influence, diversifying funding options and creating sustainable
partnerships. As such, their interest is to consolidate the established
networks of notorious, influential NGOs. This approach clearly
contradicts the need for diversifying aid programs on a regional base and
to develop grass roots initiatives in areas suffering from multiple social
and economical constraints. Then again, sound projects, with direct
impact on remote communities might never evolve towards self-
sustainability and diversify their resources for lack of notoriety and
credibility in the eyes of donors.

One solution, for some donors, has been to encourage and to develop a
network of local NGOs to implement their projects. That has made room
for long term, result oriented strategies and has contributed to the
professionalism of local staff and to the development of local
partnerships between NGOs and local communities. The downside of this
approach has been the tendency for donors to rely only on their network
in which they have invested effort and trust and to neglect the
development of partnerships. For instance, both the Swiss Agency for
International Development and the Open Society Foundation network
support a program of micro-credits addressed to rural communities, but
broadly speaking there is little knowledge and information exchange
between local actors of these programs. While the donors’ experts may
meet and engage in some form of cooperation at the central level, the
absence of notorious regional ISO (intermediary support organization)
leads to little coordination of regional actors sharing the same objectives
but following different donors’ strategies.

3.3 FOREIGN DONORS’ POLICIES IN ROMANIA

All donors active in democracy development support projects aimed to
build civil society, enforce the rule of law and create good governance
practices. However, the underlying assumptions about what exactly
constitutes an effective civil society or an accountable government vary
widely. The conceptual division explains why different donors have had
different views on the issues facing the development of civil society in
Romania and also why Romanian institutions have had their own vision
on future developments of civil society.

“The new approach of the Open Society Foundation for 2001 will
consist in a series of initiatives aimed at enhancing attractiveness
towards the EU Integration Trend and creating the pre-requisites
for the emergence of the necessary “detractors” capable to

33
disconnect Romania from the other negative trends: the
disintegrative trend coming from the Balkans and the regrouping
of the CIS economies under the large influence of the organized
crime.” (Gabriel Petrescu, Soros Foundation)

The major donors in Romania are:

1. European Union

2. USAID

3. USIS

4. World Bank

5. UNDP

6. UK department for international development DFID

7. Embassy of the Netherlands

8. Swiss Agency for International Development

9. Embassy of Canada

10. Charles Stewart Mott Foundation

11. German Marshall Fund

12. Open Society Network

13. Regional Environment Center

14. Romanian Banks

15. Euro-Carpathian Foundation

Funding availability is crucial to the development of the civil society

sector because it raises many questions on priorities in the decision-
making processes. Foreign donors have frequently been accused of
adopting funding strategies, which ignore local needs or tend to focus on
issues that are not set as priorities for local politicians or for the public
opinion. The other side of the coin is the perception among foreign
donors that many local Romanian NGOs are fund driven rather than
demand driven. It implies that many local Romanian NGOs are switching

34
fast program development in order to respond to available funding, thus
ignoring local needs.

There is nevertheless a consensus that donor strategies are driven

mostly in response to their own countries assistance tradition and in
response to their public. For instance, in the American perception, the
most effective assistance is that which brings not methodology but
sustained personal interaction between skilled professionals and their
counterparts in the recipient countries 8. Another example is the Swiss
Agency for International Development, in whose view proven social
impact and result oriented programs are preferred to vast ambitious civil
society schemes. As such, the Swiss Agency for Development has funded
mostly local programs, supporting for instance the development of a
medical emergency integrated system in Bucharest and six other cities
or investing in agricultural foundations supporting small grants and
mechanization for farmers in Transylvania.

USAID Romania supports local democratic development with

an annual amount evaluated at $ 40 million/year. Of this
amount around 50% goes to strengthening partnerships and
increasing know how in economic development and around
25% is devoted to support partnerships between Romanian
and American foundations active in the civil society sector. 9 In
1995, USAID started an ambitious program aiming to develop
and expand the ability of Romanian civil society to participate
in political and economic decision-making. World Learning, an
American organization was awarded the contract and the
ensuing Dem Net program sought to develop long term
sustainability projects led by local NGOs practicing advocacy
for local communities agenda. Through its office in Bucharest
World Learning managed the whole program, which included
four majors steps: research, training, technical assistance and
grants. Nearly 400 NGOs were screened and the resulting
institutional analysis was used to lay the ground for an even
bolder step of the program. From the total of 400 NGOs, only
83 made it further to the next step, where the need for
developing advocacy techniques was underlined. From the
total of 83 organizations, fifty-five devised advocacy campaigns
to address their priorities. Of the total of fifty-five, fourteen
projects were reviewed and nominated for USAID funding

8
The German Marshall Fund of the United States, P. 7

9
Interview with USAID Executive Director, Denny Robertson, June 2001.

35
 before USAID suspended the grants process in order to review
its approach to civil society10. The whole process was halted
and World Learning went a long way down its own advocacy
role, claiming in an executive summary that the process was
successful because it fostered community based NGOs.

DemNet is an eloquent example that when donors change priorities they

affect local agenda and create a vicious circle in the debate between
themselves and NGOs. NGOs accused of being fund driven and changing
priorities in correlation with donors’ agenda blame donors inconsistency
and lack of information as the main cause of the absence of strategic
vision in the development of the civil society.

But even when money is available, as with EU funding, donors’ priorities

are sometimes incompatible with local expectations and with their own
defined goals.

The EU civil society programs funding was ambitious in goal and in

vision but proportionately far less important than industrial re-
conversion programs. For instance, in the summer of 2001, the PHARE
Europa program seeking to support awareness of the European acquis
and to increase the visibility of the European Union in Romania awarded
a total amount of EURO 216,840 to Romanian organizations. Of this
amount, only 10% was awarded to NGOs (in fact a single NGO), and a
subsequent amount of 60% was awarded to state or public institutions
implementing European legislation. With an average grant of 0,009 Euro
per citizen in support of the noble goal of raising knowledge and
awareness on European integration, it seems that one has to give up
hope that EU funding can make a difference through NGOs in the
expected future.

The former LIEN and the future ACCESS programs sought to…. support
the development of NGOs and associations promoting a democratic and
a pluralist society… contribute to exchange of information, techniques,
and expertise between Parliament and civil society... contribute to the
development and implementation of knowledge on European acquis in
human rights.

On July 28th 2000, the European Commission also commissioned the

IEDDO (Initiative for Human Rights and Democracy) program supporting
the development of civil society and human rights.

10
World Learning, Democracy network program in Romania, 1995-1999. P. 14

36
Nevertheless, compared to the available assistance for SME or regional
development granted by the EU to the Romanian Central Government or
to the (former) Agency for Regional Development, the amounts granted
for the development of civil society are limited. As a matter or
comparison, the future ACCESS program will amount to no more than
EURO 4,1 million for the next two years (an average of EURO 0,17 per
Romanian citizen), which is less than the usual amount granted in only
one region (such as the North East) for SME development and industrial
re-conversion in the summer of 2000.

One big hope for local NGOs was the initiative of the Stability Pact for
South Eastern Europe established in June 1999. In the founding
document, more than 40 partner countries and organizations undertook
to strengthen the countries of South Eastern Europe on their way to
Euro-Atlantic integration. The Stability Pact claimed to be the first
serious attempt by the international community to replace the previous,
reactive crisis intervention policy in South Eastern Europe with a
comprehensive, long-term conflict prevention strategy. The idea behind
the Stability Pact was that conflict prevention and peace building can be
successful only if they start in parallel in three key sectors: the creation
of a secure environment, the promotion of sustainable democratic
systems, and the promotion of economic and social well-being.

In the view of the Stability Pact, it is not the amount of money that is, in
the end, decisive for the success of aid. Rather, it depends on the
activities to which the funds are directed. In other words, as far as
support is concerned, it is not so much a matter of "how much" but "what
for". The Stability Pact partners therefore established their own priorities
for financing programs. In the area of civil society, fourteen projects
where financed in Romania with around EURO 14 Million.

Many critics of the Stability Pact maintain that it is an empty

shell with little impact beyond existing networks and no
independent resources supply. Local experienced NGOs have
been very little involved in the strategies and actions of the
Stability Pact, which many have come to see not as an asset,
but as a liability, catching the attention of donors and decision
makers and moving it away from local agenda and expertise to
diplomatic arenas.

One of the most severe critics to the whole project was a letter sent by
George Soros to Bodo Hombach in June 2001, underlining the need for
greater transparency, a greater role for local NGOs and stronger
involvement of existing networks.

37
The World Bank has been active in Romania since 1991. Civil society
oriented programs include the Child Welfare Reform Project (US$ 5
million), the Cultural Heritage Project (US$5 million), the Social
Development Project-Phase I (US$10 million). The 1997 Country
assistance strategy outlined four priorities for the World Bank 's
assistance strategy during the period 1998-2001: (i) promoting
structural reform and private sector development; (ii) fighting poverty
and developing human capital; (iii) strengthening and rationalizing the
role of the state; and (iv) protecting and enhancing the environment. The
World Bank’s assistance strategy for 2002-2004 is built on the premise
that while Romania is turning away from its legacy of erratic
macroeconomic management of the 1990s, the new Government needs
to demonstrate a sustained commitment to accelerated reform, in order
to secure complementary external financing and to pave the way for
eventual EU accession. If Romania reverts to pursuing a hesitant pace of
reforms, Bank Group assistance will be very limited, and significantly
reduced from the levels of Bank Group support over the past four years.
Under these circumstances, Bank support would be limited to a few
targeted poverty interventions aimed at improving the delivery of key
social services and revitalizing the rural economy. If, on the other hand,
Romania sustains an accelerated pace of reform, Bank Group assistance
will be broader in scope, and support a sustained reduction in poverty;
that is, not only targeted poverty interventions, but also bold structural
and sectoral reforms to accelerate growth through private sector
development and the strengthening of public sector institutional
capacity, and to pave the way for Romania's eventual accession to the
EU. In light of uncertainties about whether accelerated reforms will be
sustained in Romania, Bank assistance is organized around two lending
scenarios (high and low), one of which would be triggered by the end of
2001.

GMF's (GERMAN MARSHALL FUND of the US) goal is to promote

cooperation and networking between the United States, Western Europe
and the newly democratic countries of Central and Eastern Europe in the
areas of political, economic, and environmental reforms.

Grants focusing mainly on Poland, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria are

made within the four program areas, and are directed from GMF's
Bratislava office.

GMF makes grants to individuals and organizations. Institutional support

is available for organizations that have significant, ongoing transatlantic
programs. GMF also administers fellowships, some of which are limited
based on citizenship.

38
Three policies guide GMF's grant-making in the United States and
Europe:

1. Projects must address issues important to European countries and

the United States. They must involve people or institutions on both
sides of the Atlantic.
2. GMF has a particular interest in leadership development.
Programs that involve political, media and other professionals who
have a strong interest in transatlantic relations and high
leadership potential will be given special attention.
3. Projects normally must include the transfer of experience and
innovations, preferably involving practitioners and policymakers.

The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation makes grants in the United

States and around the world. About 20 percent of the grants are
international.

In all grant-making, the Mott Foundation is particularly interested in:

 Fresh approaches to solving community problems in our defined
program areas;
 Approaches that, if proven successful, can generate long-term
support from other sources and/or be replicated in other
communities when appropriate;
 Public policy development and research and development activities
to further existing programs, as well as to explore new fields of
interest;
 Approaches and activities that lead to systemic change.

The foreign donors meet and seek to coordinate their strategies in the
Donors Forum where there is a regular exchange of information and
expertise on program priorities since 1997. There were thirteen
members in the Donors Forum in 2001, all of which have granted funds
of minimum $20,000 per year to at least five Romanian NGOs. The
Donors forum is a network sharing the vision of a sustainable civil
society in which a wide range of resources support the engagement of
citizens in addressing local and national issues11. The Secretariat of the
Donors Forum is hosted by the Princess Margareta Foundation of
Romania and is coordinated by Corina Gonteanu (as of 2001). The
Donors forum engages in regular consultations (once every two months
in average) on instruments, techniques, programs and skills involved in

11
Donors Forum mission statement, 2001.

39
the development of civil society in Romania. It will soon publish a report
on donor’s policies in Romania gathering updated information of foreign
donor’s funding strategies.

Donors’ forum contact information

Princess Margareta of Romania Foundation
Plevnei Street 98, bloc 10 C, ap. 8
Bucharest, 1
4012230875
e-mail: corina.gonteanu@principesa.ro

Critics of the Donors Forum include many NGOs insisting that it does
little to foster cooperation between the civil society and donors and that
it claims from the NGOs the kind of transparency, accountability and
flexibility it is not able to ensure for its own meetings.

3.4 ON THE ROAD TO LOCAL SUSTAINABILITY

From the NGOs point of view, the National NGO forums seeks to provide
representativeness at the national level and to identify patterns of
decision making processes for the donors. They have been organised by
CENTRAS along other NGOs every year since 1994. In 1998 , GIR (the
executive group for the implementation of the Forum’s decisions) has
been appointed as the legal and managerial executive arm of the Forum.
GIR comprises around fifteen organizations among which there are
resource centers, regional organizations, and civil rights protection
foundations. GIR has been intensively involved in lobbying and defending
the sector’s interests in front of international donors and public
institutions.

Governmental funds are available for some civil society programs. The
first (since 1990) and the most active Ministry in supporting NGOs has
been the Youth and Sports Ministry. For example, the Ministry of Culture
funds special cultural projects such as CD Rom-s with educational input
or conferences that gather associations and are opened to the public.
There are also governmental institutions, which have available funding,
originated from EU programs designed for implementation in
cooperation with local NGOs. Nevertheless, funds from the central
government are rarely granted based on clear, accountable indicators.
Furthermore, as the central government is subject to political influence
and to political orientation gearing strategies, NGOs that are neither
notorious nor related to some sort of political coalition have a hard time

40
accessing these funds. To complicate matters, there is also little
knowledge at the central government level, and little incentives to set up
NGO-central government funding strategies, involving European or
taxpayers’ money.

Even if there is a political will, for the central government civil society
funding strategies are just another matter of national policies, besides
the need to fund social assistance, industrial re-conversion or public
institutions programs. Whilst at the national level, the reform of the
education, industrial or health sector has impact on a large number of
people and draw most of media attention, civil society funding is not
considered a priority even in the eyes of public opinion. There has been,
until now, little incentive in terms of electoral or media support, for a
responsive government to focus its funding or human resource efforts
towards the development of civil society and NGOs.

At the local level things can be different. The new legal framework
opens the way for decentralization and gives more money and more
power to local authorities. Effective local authority support can be crucial
for the success of a civil society initiative and it sometimes is. Small
things such as the dissemination of information through public
authorities networks and the availability of a conference room or lodging
facilities free of charge can dramatically increase the ability of local
NGOs to provide services and to attract further funding.

One source of funding is the business or private sector. Nevertheless,

the overall economic decline from 1996 to 2000 has reduced the ability
of the business sector to provide funding to NGOs. The Sponsorship law
(32/1994, modified in 1998) states that 5% of the business-profit is tax
deductible if donated to NGOs. Many say that the sponsorship law
doesn’t provide enough of an incentive to businesses and that the huge
amount of red tape required to benefit from tax deduction discourages
most businesses to provide sponsorships. Hence most of private business
support has been in kind.

A study realized by the CSDF in 1997 showed that only 32% of the
business firms would consider only social or humanitarian arguments
when making a sponsoring decision. Sponsoring decisions based on
image and notoriety arguments are more frequent and there seems to be
a positive correlation between firms investing in advertising and in
sponsoring the civil society. In that case, sponsorship is considered a
logical step besides advertising activities, a tool that is consistent with
the general marketing approach of the company and that can provide
cost/benefit in terms of media coverage much more profitable than
traditional advertising. This trend clearly favors sponsorships of public
events activities with large social impact drawing media attention.

41
Foundations and NGOs that tend to focus primarily on conferences and
or low profile grass roots work are less fortunate in accessing private
sponsorships while organizations with strong PR skills and effective
media connections are in a good position to negotiate sponsorships from
private donors.

The Civil Society Development Foundation is an NGO providing specialized

training courses on different topics, weekly and monthly publications,
educational brochures on relevant issues, legal counseling, and specialized
technical assistance. It has over four years experience in program management
and provision of technical assistance to major donors for grant aid programs,
having administered over EURO 4 million since 1994.
Contact: www..fdsc.ro.

Types of activities sponsored by firms in

Romania of the total number of sponsorships in
1996

Actions with public impact

only
Social and humanitarian
15% actions only
30%
Humanitarian actions and
actions with public impact
Long term projects only
24%
Others
11% 20%

(Source: Social dimension of the business sector in Romania: sponsorship and mecenate,
CSDF, 1997)

A new development has been the creation by the most influential and
prosperous business groups of their own network of non-profit
organizations, gathering their funds and thus operating tax deductions.
For instance, the two major private television networks (Antena 1 and
Pro Tv) in Romania have offered sponsorships solely to their own
foundations, which are engaged in education, publishing or cultural
activities, sometimes generating additional revenues or providing a
human touch legitimacy to their stars. Another major business group
(Ana electronics) has been funding a football team (Rapidul Bucuresti)
while major banks (such as the still state owned BCR and the French
owned BRD by Societe Generale) have been offering sponsorships to

42
cultural, business or political related conferences. In effect, major
funding opportunities from the private sector are rare since important
players and profit makers have decided to concentrate only on a narrow
range of foundations, most of which are submitted to political or
economic control. Other, smaller, private enterprises, such as
restaurants, hotels or consumer goods providers have been offering
limited amounts of sponsorships. Private entrepreneurs also seem to
complain about the lack of ability of the NGOs to provide them with
meaningful, notorious or sound sponsorships proposals.

Mobifon is one of the largest private Romanian companies, providing

telecommunication and data transmission services. Connex, the mobile
phone brand owned by Mobifon has over 1 million customers. Mobifon
has supported the activities of the Telecommunication and Electronic
faculty, providing equipment and training. Mobifon has also supported
the development of the Sirois foundation, through employee donations:
this foundation is involved in child protection activities. Promotional and
civil society activities are sometimes blended in Mobifon’s funding
strategy: for instance the Humorror Black humor festival has become a
traditional cultural event integrated in the marketing strategy of the
company.

Mobifon sponsoring address

City Business center, Str. Nerva Traian, 3, Complex M101, Sector 3,
74228 Bucharest

One proposal suggested that the National Lottery could become a

major funding provider for the NGO sector. The National Lottery, now a
state monopoly could generate available funding of approx. $ 2
million/year (KPMG Romania). The argument behind this proposal (1998)
devised by the Civil Society Development Foundation is that the lottery is
not affected by the decline in economic activities. Further more, most of
the gamblers are people at the lower end of revenues and it would be
morally just that part of the profit made returns to civil society oriented
activities. A national board could decide on which programs would be
financed and the perspective of seeing part of the State Lottery profits
being reinvested in civil society activities could also increase the
legitimacy and the income of the State Lottery.

Some NGOs have developed business activities as a stable provider of

continuous income. Many of the NGOs, which have adopted this
approach, have indicated donors’ reluctance to fund some core costs
(such as wages, administration, rent…) as the main argument for their
choice. The type of activities and services that are most frequently
encountered and that produce income are:
 business or financial consultancy

43
  human resources consultancy
 charging fees for proposal writing
 using their administrative offices for communication facilities
(especially in the country side), providing telecommunication, fax,
computers, internet
 translation and several forms of courses (including languages)
 small scale production: furniture, agricultural mechanization
services

Public donations are also a meager source of funding for Romanian

NGOs. Cultural background in Romania encourages some forms of
charity actions, especially for religious and social causes. The Church is
still, formally, the most respected institution in the country even if in the
recent history it has not been involved in providing large-scale social
assistance programs. Church donations represent a very important
percentage of the donations made by ordinary citizens.

Donations in cash (average donation per year:

$10 in 1996)

80
78%
70
donate to the church
60

50 donate to social
services
40
donate to NGOs
24%
30
donate to local
20 community projects
7% 5%
10

The same study offers an interesting insight on what motivates the

Romanian citizens to make donations

44
 What motivates Romanian citizens to make
donations (1 = don’t agree 4 = strongly agree)

3,44 Religious motivations

3,5 3,38

2,98 Government should take care

3
of the poor
Need for donation has
2,5 increased
I have donated to receive
2 something back
1,45 I pay taxes so why should I
1,5 make any more donations
1,21
1

In short, there is a serious tendency to consider that the government is

responsible for taking care of the worsening living conditions for the
poor. Most citizens, on the other hand have a positive approach towards
charity actions, believing that there are increasing needs for the poor.
Furthermore, most citizens do not consider that paying taxes or
expecting a return is an argument when deciding to make donations.
Economically constrained citizens think that something ought to be done,
but they just don’t know whom to support and how to support those who
are even poorer. Such a social environment, which is also supportive of
religion motivated donations suggests that, with an adequate strategic
framework (including education campaigns), channeling people’s good
will is an option for the financially sustainability of the civil society sector.

Human resources are also critical for the long-term development of the
civil society sector. There is a false debate between the need for
increasing professionalism and the degree of volunteer and benevolent
involvement.

Voluntary participation is one of the key aspects in defining the non-profit

sector. Hence, the degree of voluntary participation is a crucial indicator
of the public’s confidence in democratic institutions. A vibrant civil
society is defined by a multi-level network of relations, communication,
actions and symbols gathered by numerous people acting together for
the common good, sharing long term or short term interests. In Romania,

45
the professional associations (including chambers of commerce) are
entirely volunteer and based on free will.

4
Chapter

A research made in 1999 showed that 35% of NGO use volunteer work
on a frequent base, 18% from time to time and 26% exclusively volunteer
work.12

There is also a huge untapped resource for Romanian voluntary

participation. Recent research studies have showed that the Romanian
cultural background is favorably leaning towards informal participation
in public events. In rural areas (45% of the Romanian population leaves
in the countryside), 69% of the population meets and gets involved in
social interaction outside a formal framework. Most people in the rural
areas meet and discuss in the street while the average amount of time
spent with neighbors, fellow colleagues or relatives is relatively
important13. Most citizens also have strong opinions on certain public
issues and are committed to try and convince their fellow citizens of their
point of view. Channeling this energy within the framework of local
community based organizations is the core dynamic of the sector
development.

Roles and Issues

RolesandIssues

In 1999, a research study realized by Daniel Saulean14 mentioned five key

roles for the civil society in Romania. . These roles are also to be found in

12
The white papers of the Romanian Non-governmental Organizations forum, 1999, P. 53

13
Civil Society Development Foundation, Associative and philanthropic behavior, 1997.

46
other countries and are generally assumed by NGOs:
:
1. Service provider
2. Innovator in public area
3. Vehicle for change in the public area
4. Democracy development
5. Local communities representation

In this study it was mentioned that

In fact, the restoration of democracy – as a key role of Romanian NGOs -

is only a first step--necessary to be, sure, but in and of itself insufficient if
we are to help solving the serious social problems in our country. There
has been undeniable progress – Romania enjoys now democratic political
institutions. Still, the reconstruction of the political system remains
incomplete. We are just beginning to see the first glimmerings of the true
"refashioning" of public awareness advocated by NGOs, and even more
importantly, of the revitalization of the public sphere as a possible locus
for the rational discussion between different groups of interests.

Other perspectives, such as American’s Dem Net (World Learning)

program suggests that the goal of the NGO community … is to serve as a
primary vehicle for citizen participation in forming, implementing, and
monitoring public policy15

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe comprises all

European states, including Russia and the former Soviet Republics. It is,
undoubtedly, the diplomatic framework with the highest level of
representativeness on the continent. OSCE’s view on the role of NGOs is
that they can also… enhance the ideatic (symbolic) role of OSCE
resolutions and support it’s actions through normative involvement…
providing room for mediation, dialogue, offering expertise in political,
economical and human affairs… 16

For the World Bank17, …NGOs can reach remote communities with little
or no infrastructure where public services are absent… can promote and

14
Non governmental organizations in Romanian society: impact analysis.

15
World Learning, Democracy network program in Romania, 1995-1999. P. 6

16
Study on enhancement of NGO participation, documentation section, OSCE, Vienna, 1995.

17
Ngos and the Bank, World Bank, Poverty and Social policy department, 1995.

47
enhance local participation and strengthen community links… are good
vehicles for identifying local needs and resources…

In practice, bold mission assignments, adequate financial resources and

stable sources of income do not guarantee a strong role for civil society
organizations. In addition to these, for the NGOs to participate effectively
to the local communities and assume key roles, there are also other
needs.

 NGOs must possess organizational capacities, including legitimacy,

consistency, sustainability, credibility
 NGOs must have adequate staff with competitive skills
 NGOs must assume their role in relation to their
communities/constituency

NGOs are not functioning in a vacuum and the civil society sector is
affected by the same rules and constraints like most people in the
Romanian society. For instance, as we have seen, NGOs are affected
by the declining / reforming state of the economy, which dramatically
reduces their funding options. On the other hand, a booming economy
could mean that many people would focus on individual strategies and
seek to maximize their economic gains leaving aside community based
action. NGOs are also affected by the flaws and risks of contemporary
representative democracies : disaffection with mainstream politicians,
lack of interest in public goods and even the atomisation of the
society, populist temptations and the disappearance of traditional
public debates forums. In this respect, NGOs task is to enhance and
update democracy so that it will continue to prevail as an ideal, while
the institutions inspired by it function effectively.

To succeed, NGOs must possess organizational capacities, including

legitimacy, sustainability, credibility and consistency.
 because NGOs are organizations. People active in organizations
are also working and they also belong to other organizations.
Hence they make comparisons. If an organization is not strong
enough to motivate its members people will loose interest in
participating in its activities.
 because people judge institutions based on the perception they
have of them. There is not such a thing as a true or as a false
image. If an NGO gets a bad press, then it develops a legitimacy
problem. No one has the monopoly of truth and NGOs per se do
not have a higher public legitimacy than a political party or a
private venture. Building an image requires strong managerial
aptitudes, consistent communication policies, formalized internal
systems, relying on people’s good will is not an option. Truth must
be well told.

48
  because NGOs are submitted to the same rules as other
organizations. Strong managerial aptitudes, good strategic
planning, sound policies and established reputation may be goals
that are shared by all organizations. For an NGO these goals are
crucial for fund raising, community based projects and public
policy impact.

The Romanian Public Administration service is neither too

large nor too great a fiscal burden to the overall economy,
according to an IBRD report18. Its main flaws are: lack of
coordination, excessive duplication of tasks, red tape and
outputs, little responsiveness to public expectations, petty
corruption and unfriendly staff. Real net wages in the public
sector for the civil servants fell by 38% between 1990 and
1998… The index of trust in the justice system, the
government and parliament averaged less than 30%

Conventional thinking would assume that as long as Romania fulfills the

economic criteria for EU accession, all other aspects of Romania’s
development challenge – such as good governance and human
development – would automatically trickle down or take effect. It is
probably the other way around19.

"One of the fundamental prerequisites for the achievement of

sustainable development is broad public participation in
decision-making. Furthermore, in the more specific context of
environmental and social protection, and development, the
need for new forms of participation has emerged."
Agenda 21, Ch.23

Characteristic features of contemporary democratic countries include

transparency of decision-making processes, and openness to public
participation20, in particular in developing draft laws, rules, policies.

18
Romania, Public expenditure review Part II – Civil service reform, IBRD, no 1744-RO, June 2
, 1998.

19
National human development report, Romania 2001, UNDP country office, Romania. P. 61

20
Project on the Co-operation between the Ministry for the Environmental Protection, Natural
Resources and Forestry (MEPNRF) and ecological NGO's, Polish Environmental Law

49
Broad public participation is not only reaching educational goals or
mitigating negative attitude towards decisions in controversial
matters, but often allows preventing significant errors which might
cause problems with policy implementation.

Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs), including World Bank (WB),

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), and
European Bank for Investments, are beginning to take into
consideration the crucial role of NGOs - serving as valuable links
between the general public and policymakers 21. NGOs, especially
ECOs, are generally promoting new models of co-operation, esp. in
relation to information flow, and the "right to participate in decision-
making processes."

One thing is quite clear: on long run it seems to be inevitable to

establish a more comprehensive legal and non-formal framework
concerning public participation in policymaking, including
international funding institutions and international corporations'
activities.

NGOs clearly have a role in supporting public institutions to provide

better and more citizen oriented services, i.e. in enhancing good
governance. Critical areas where NGO can play a role22 are:

a) Promote rule of law, educating more people, raising awareness on

the legal framework, support the enforcement of impartial justice.

Example:

THE ROMANIAN HELSINKI COMMITTEE (APADOR-CH),

led by Gabriel Andreescu, a well-known civil society key figure
has been active since 1990 in promoting the rule of law and
supporting the enforcement of impartial justice. APADOR-CH

Association (PELA), final report, Wroclaw, 1997, p.111

21
NGOs and Sustainable Development in Romania, an assessment prepared by Jonathan
Francis - Foundation for International Training, Canada, June 1998

22
See Governance for sustainable human development: a UNDP document, New York, 1997.

50
 Romania has been involved in all major debates, from the
Constitutional ones (1991) to the recent lobbying for the
observance of human rights in prison. The strategy used by
APADOR-CH consists in monitoring and establishing a dialogue
with the authorities; the association is also a credible source of
information for national and international non-governmental
and governmental organisations. For more information please
visit www.apador.org

b) Support participation, involving more Romanians in more decision-

making processes, through different associations that can represent
their point of view in policies affecting ordinary citizens, bringing
citizens in touch with public institutions.

Example:

IDEE, a public policy think tank, developed during the

electoral year 2000 a program called Bringing the public
policy agenda in the public area. More than 8000 citizens
were involved in debates taking place in the public squares of
six regional capitals and Bucharest City; the originality of the
approach was that, while few politicians bother to come and
stay in public squares even during the electoral campaign,
IDEE’s teams spent full days in every square gathering
opinions on particular local community issues. People were
asked to write their point of view on huge billboards or to
make statements in front of a camera and often engaged in
lively debates, creating a spontaneous forum for exchanging
opinions and testing policies awareness. The collected
documents were analyzed and forwarded to newly elected
officials. In May 2001, a similar event was organized on
Europe’s day. People were encouraged to express their feelings
about European integration and discuss their views in large
numbers. The results were forwarded to the Delegation of the
European Commission. For more information please visit
www.idee.ro

51
c) support the development of responsiveness mechanisms for public
institutions, for instance, gathering citizens point of views,
developing questionnaires, proposals or feed back mechanisms for
local communities

Example:

THE RURAL ASSISTANCE CENTER of Timisoara is

currently managing a Local Promoter program seeking to
improve the performances of the local public administration in
rural areas. There are 22 municipalities and three cities with
over 15,000 inhabitants of the Timis County currently involved
in the program. Practically speaking, each municipality has
hired a Local Promoter who was trained and supported by the
Center for Rural Assistance. The Local Promoter’s job is to
devise development projects for the community. They work in
several task forces: public administration, rural tourism, social
issues, environment protection... The local promoters’
performance has been mixed: while some communities have
disproportionate expectations of them, others work along with
them for practical results: training for social assistance,
cleaning up local forests, gathering food and clothes for the
poor.

d) mediation services. Consensus building for public policies involves

active consultation with significant actors. Communication
strategies are a crucial part of implementing public policies and
NGOs can help by bringing at the same table political institutions,
private interests and experts.

A failed example of mediation strategy:

In 1997, the government led by Prime Minister Ciorbea

decided to amend Law 42/1990, regulating the specific rights
granted to Revolutionaries, a category of citizens involved in
the 1989 events, which brought down the communist regime.
While the opinion polls showed that a slight majority of citizens
was in favor of reducing the privileges granted to the
Revolutionaries, the government was advised to discuss and
explain its proposed amendments to a group of NGOs
representing the Revolutionaries. When it failed to do so, these

52
 NGOs, possessing strong mobilization skills and gathering
citizens familiar with direct street action, started a hunger
strike in front of the Senate. A week later, with ample media
support and switching public opinion, the NGOs made their
point and the government backed up.

A good example of mediation strategy:

In 2001, there were rumors that the government intended to

change its policy and restrain the rights and powers granted to
the National Audiovisual Council, a public agency in charge
with monitoring and evaluating audiovisual broadcasting and
licenses. The Ministry of Communication suspected that the
National Audiovisual Council intended to sell licenses and
frequencies to private interests, without the Parliament’s
approval. On the other hand, the National Audiovisual Council
strongly believed that the new Minister was planning to
reduce its attribution and role. A conference organized by the
Press Monitoring Agency, an NGO, brought together all the
significant actors and contributed to the diffusion of the
tension and of the suspicions.

e) ensuring equal opportunity services to ordinary citizens and

providing alternative social services.

Example:

THE HIV SOCIAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSISTANCE

CENTER started from the fact that HIV infected people and
their families suffer from numerous constraints, including
social marginalization. In rural areas, HIV is perceived as a
disease related to a socially or sexually disordered life; hence
people suffering from HIV related diseases have to face several
social and cultural stereotypes. Most HIV infected people in
this region come from poor families with little medical
knowledge and little understanding of the legal and social
support available. The HIV Social and Psychological Assistance
Center has opened two offices, each with one doctor, two
social assistants and two psychologists, in Piatra-Neamţ and
Bacău. The project was financed by the EU, through the Phare-
Lien and Tacis Programs in partnership with Ost-West Institute
fur Sozial Management, Bonn, Germany and “Dessine-moi un

53
 mouton”, Paris, France. The project was designed to improve
the life of 510 HIV infected citizens and their family members.
Several activities were organized, among which psychological
support for patients and their families, social events for HIV
infected children, training provided to local medics and
assistants, were the most successful.

f) improving the efficiency of public services and innovating

institutional development procedures. Because they are more
flexible than public administration institutions, NGOs can innovate
and develop the type of procedures and instruments that are
needed to improve public services, test them and monitor their
impact.

Example:

THE PROBATION CENTER in Iasi started from the fact that

probation is a recent concept in Europe, offering young
offenders the option to pay for their felonies in liberty. If they
are receptive to an education program that combines social
assistance and surveillance, they can escape the vicious circle
of aggravating behavior attitudes that develops in prison.
Probation is possible only with the support of specialized
NGOs and if a judge recommends it. Such a probation center,
probably the best in Romania, was established in Iaşi, in 1996,
by the Experimental Probation Center Association, with
the support of the Social Assistance Faculty of Iasi University.
In comparison with other types of punishment, probation
reduces costs for the state and leads to sensibly better results
in terms of rehabilitation. There is also an option for probation
for those who are already in jail but are willing to engage in
probation activities. While on probation, young offenders are
able to find psychological support, acquire new skills, discuss
with legal or social advisors, in short, to learn about new role
models that will help some of them distance themselves from
criminal activities for good.

g) accountability. Because they can gather information and can

develop civic activism NGOs can help make decision makers in the
administration or private sector more accountable. Promotion of
civic education is strongly correlated with improving institutional
accountability.

54
 Example:

PRO DEMOCRATIA, an organization specialized in providing

expertise in the fields of electoral assistance and electoral
participation has also been active in monitoring the political
parties campaign funds. Following the 2000 elections, Pro
Democratia published a report stating that most political
parties spent up to ten times what they had declared in their
official statements. The same report indicated that some
political parties officials had asked for bribes in order to place
their members in constituencies with solid chances of being
elected. An interesting aspect of the Pro Democratia programs
was that even though they were mostly perceived as being
politically sympathetic to parties such as the Christian
Democrats, their reports blamed all the parties in the political
arena, without distinction. In 2000, Pro Democratia also
helped export its know how in electoral assistance by
participating in the Serbian elections monitoring process.

h) strategic planning. NGOs can act as vehicles for change and can
do genuine innovative work in some areas whilst public
administration is busy managing current issues. NGOs can provide
valuable long-term research, focusing on consequences, analyzing
trends and evaluating options and costs and make their results
available to a large number of actors and decision makers.

Example:

THE ROMANIAN ACADEMIC SOCIETY (SAR) includes

several prestigious experts in political sciences and economics.
Starting with 2001, it provides an Early Warning report,
regular analysis financed by the UNDP Office in Romania
designed for politicians, media and decision makers. The
reports and analyses elaborated by SAR offer an in-depth
perspective on economic, political and social trends, setting up
a long term and a comparative perspective, enhancing
visibility for potential critical issues, making risk assessments
and providing room for evaluating key actors.

i) represent local and community based interests

55
NGOs can act as constituency-based initiatives providing credible
vehicles for representation at both the local and national levels.

Example:

THE PAL-TIN PROJECT (Youth Participation in Local Administration)

was one of our first initiatives for the youth in Romania. Thee project was
developed by the MASTER forum association and sought to implement
the Resolution 237 voted in 1992 at the European conference Regional
powers conference As elsewhere, disenchanted youth found little
interest in joining local political movement and sensed that there was
little they could do to impact decisions at their local level. The project
aimed to establish youth councils in order to offer to children between
13-15 years old a first experience in democratic procedures, to help
them express their opinions and desires. The project included a training
program focused around the familiarisation with the mechanisms of
electoral institutions, of public administration and public decisions at the
local level. Adults also benefited from the project as partners or
promoters, learning to cooperate in the benefit of local community. Since
1994, more than 45 youth councils have been created in Romania and
over 140,000 children were involved at some point in the election
process. For more information, please visit www.paltin.ro

evelopment.

56
GIR ACHIEVEMENTS

5
Chapter

By Florin Vasiliu

GIR 2000 represents The Executive Group of the 1999 National NGO
Forum:

GIR 2000 is mandated by the Romanian NGO Forum to implement the

Forum Resolutions, to represent the interests of the NGO sector, and
to act as a rapid reaction group in issues of concern for the NGO
sector.

The mandate entrusted by 200 NGOs throughout the country has

given GIR five main responsibilities: to draft and put into practice the
strategy for resolution implementation; to take a stand in situations
that affect the overall image of the NGO sector; to promote the image
of the NGO sector; to draft and develop campaigns to attract funding
sources for the programs and projects of NGOs; to analyze the
opportunities and methods to institutionalize the NGO Forum.

GIR’s activity between November 1999 and November 2000 evolved

according to the guidelines set by the mandate of the 1999 Forum.
GIR members met monthly to establish work plans, took part in
conferences and seminars on topics of general interest for the
Romanian associative sector, in meetings with representatives of
public institutions, political parties, main institutional donors, and in
county forums.

The amount of activity was considerable for the GIR members, who
acted as volunteers, as this workload came over their current
activities in the organizations they represented. Besides, the
organizations themselves contributed in this enterprise, by organizing
GIR meetings throughout the country, or by covering transportation
and accommodation expenses of GIR members going to Bucharest.

57
GIR Results

 Amendment of the Law of associations and foundations – resulting

in the emergence of a new regulatory framework: Governmental
Ordinance 26/2000
 Presenting the NGOs priorities to the Donors Forum.
 Co-operation with the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
 Upon the initiative of GIR, twenty seven county forums took place
in the year 2000, as compared with 25 in 1999, while the funds
available for the sector dropped
 A dialogue campaign with the political parties was initiated during
an electoral period
 A campaign for saving the Danube Delta Nature Reserve was
initiated, by the “Save the Delta” Initiative Group, together with
GIR members

GIR’s involvement in the enforcement of the regional and national

development strategy was turned into practice by the dialogue with
the World Bank, the participation in the drafting of the Medium Term
National Economic Strategy and the involvement in the activities of
the National Regional Development Agency.

The dialogue with the World Bank was held under the umbrella of
CDF – Comprehensive Development Framework – as part of the
process called “Our Common Future”. At the same time, GIR was
consulted in the development of the GATEWAY project – a modern
method of Internet presentation for Romania.

As a consequence of the passing of Government Decision no. 88/2000

on the establishment and operations of the Medium Term National
Economic Strategy, GIR took part in the drafting of the framework file
on the development of documents for a more detailed implementation
of the Strategy in each field, and afterwards recommended to the
Strategy Development Commission to attract independent experts
from the NGO field.

As a result of negotiations with State Minister Mircea Ciumara and

Prime Minister Mugur Isarescu, GIR obtained the participation of two-
three NGO experts in each commission. Unfortunately, the response of
the NGOs and independent experts was not very good 23, and some
ministries did not communicate the date, time and place of
Commission meetings in due time.

23
Only 25-30 persons participated, of a potential number of 150 seats.

58
In the year 2000, just like in 1999, GIR initiated a campaign of
mailings to, and meetings with, the representatives of the main
institutions and donor bodies in Romania, in order to present them the
current situation of the sector and to ask for the inclusion of NGO
priorities in their funding strategies. GIR contacted the
representatives of USAID, European Commission Delegation, National
Regional Development Agency and Soros Open Network.

In August 2000, GIR members participated in a meeting with the chief

of the USAID mission to Romania, when the funding policy for the
associative sector was discussed, and the indicators included in the
NGO Sustainability Index 2000 – a survey representing the state of
the NGO sector in a large number of countries – were debated.

GIR members initiated contacts with representatives of major political

parties, in order to make the activity of the Romanian NGO sector
better known and to ask for their cooperation in: the passing of GO
26/2000 by the Parliament, in the best suited form for NGOs, the
enforcement of the existing tax facilities for NGOs and the setting up
of a parliamentary sub-committee for NGO relations.

Local NGO Forums 2000

GIR launched an appeal to the organizations in the country to initiate

county forums before the development of the 2000 National Forum.
GIR members granted free assistance and consultancy to all the
organizations that held county forums and took part in almost all the
forums organized throughout the country. Although funding for the
NGO sector dropped dramatically during that year, the organizations
initiated, alone or in partnership with the local government, twenty-
seven county forums in twenty-six counties.

Some of the topics on the agendas of the county forums held in 2000
were: resources for NGOs, the NGO legal framework, the public
benefit status, the image of the associative sector, especially the
relations with the media, partnerships between sectors, especially
with the LPG, partnerships within the sector: NGO federations,
umbrella organizations, 2001 – International Volunteer Year, best
practice principles and ways to put them into practice, presentation of
the NGO statement within the Stability Pact, Local Agenda 21, and
Sustainable Development

59
National NGO Forum 200024

The National Forum of the Non-Governmental Organizations took place

in Sinaia during 4-7 December 2000 under the title Sustainable
Development of the Romanian Non-Governmental Sector. This 7th edition
of the Forum hosted 140 participants representing associations,
foundations, donor organizations, central and local public institutions,
and international organizations. The first day of the Forum was dedicated
to reports and presentations. The day continued with the floor being
given to the participants, based on the new approach of the Forum’s
format: the open space.

The participants identified the main problems that could influence the
sustainable development of the NGO sector in Romania, and proposed
action plans that could lead to viable solutions to these problems.

The Forum ended with the announcement of the new executive group
and continued with presentations by the main donor organizations of
their funding strategies for 2000. The last sessions were dedicated to the
contribution of Romanian NGOs to the Stability Pact, as well as to a
discussion of the relationship between NGOs and political parties.

The action plans voted by the 2000 NGO Forum encompass the following
major steps to be undertaken by the sector in order to progress on the
road of sustainable development: training, specialized operators (such as
resource centers for NGOs or volunteer centers), self-regulation of the
sector, national campaigns designed to promote successful practices and
models, elaboration of a list with changes needed to be brought to the
legislative framework regarding NGOs’ activity, regular meetings on a
local and regional level designed to enhance the cohesion of the sector ,
a development strategy for the sector, promotion of a change of the
election system, a campaign designed to increase the awareness of the
need for transparency in the NGO – local administration relationship
institutionalization of a structure as a result of the Forum, which can
represent the Forum and act for improvement of the legal framework,
expert consultants in NGO management.

24
A report by Raluca Negulescu, CENTRAS, 2001

60
 6
Chapter

ISSUES – THE FUTURE OF THE

CIVIL SOCIETY IN ROMANIA

All recent analyses have spotted issues critical to the development of the
civil society as a whole. The concept of sustainability was used to define
an ideal model for NGO development.

In the broadest sense vis-à-vis NGOs, it can refer to the overall capacity
of a society to establish and support a not-for-profit voluntary sector... 25

Financial sustainability, i.e. a diversified and stable source of income,

encompasses only a part of the broader meaning of sustainability, which
must take into account impact, effectiveness, ability to face change, to
respond to the public agenda, transparency, ethics, organizational
structure, public image, quality of services provided etc…

Hence, if sustainability of the NGO sector as a whole becomes a shared

objective, one still has to wonder which understanding of the NGO role in
the society is considered.

The future development of the NGO sector in Romania is influenced by a

series of internal and external factors. The maximalist view holds that
NGOs should become the main democratic vehicle of social progress,
gradually taking over from the state or other form of organisations (such

25
USAID Bureau for Europe and Eurasia, Lessons in implementation: the NGO story, 1999. P.
27

61
as political parties or labor unions) the responsibilities of representing
community interests and providing public goods. In this perception
NGOs ought to become social partners with broad based legitimacies
comparable to national political or public organizations. The minimalist
view, which no longer prevails, holds that NGOs have a limited role in
providing humanitarian assistance and in issuing related services to a
limited number of citizens. In between, there is a continuous struggle for
defining NGO priorities and mission statements; one has to remember
that organizations, as the object of social theory, are themselves
continuously seeking to redefine their role and their objectives in an
ever-changing social environment.

Hence, while public opinion may expect from the NGOs an increasing
role in providing alternative public services and goods, taken over from
the state, others may believe that the strengthening of existing
organisations require huge investments in capacity building, training
facilities and financial autonomy, before enhancing their aptitudes to
provide public goods.

It is important to remember that while the civil society is an important

feature of democracy, there is single model for it and thriving NGOs are
only part of a broader environment where people ought to have broader
and alternative opportunities to gather resources, information and
models and to be represented in the civic arenas. Some of the issues
faced by Romanian NGOs are very specific and are determined by local
constraints or role models. Others are legitimate questions raised by the
role of NGOs in shaping new forms of participation in the civic arenas
and their development in contemporary societies. For instance, the
apparent dominance of prestigious and notorious NGOs in the public
discourse is a characteristic of modern societies, which favour the rapid
proliferation of “media friendly actors”. Questions about the sometimes
tensed relations between grassroots civic movements and influential
NGOs are a familiar feature for those involved in international
conferences. Issues of accountability and impact assessments are
addressed both by international NGOs and by their critics.

In Romania, as elsewhere, making civil society work requires to set up a

number of priorities, to support efforts to solve critical issues and to
allocate resources, in short to devise viable policies.

Issue nr. 1

62
Encourage the development of intermediary
support organisations
ISO (intermediary support organisations) are organisations with
experience and notoriety that can provide several resources required for
the development of civil society: information, sectorial credibility,
professional standards, network of partners and know-how (financial
planning, training, technical assistance).

ISOs have played key roles in the analysis and research of the sector,
developing organisational capacities, coordinating advocacy campaigns,
negotiating with the state on behalf of civil society regarding legislation,
as re-granting agencies and as promoters of NGO goof practice codes.

When people think about civil society they mostly think about a group of
prestigious NGOs, which have been able to grow and to articulate
credible message in the last ten years. Such organisations can provide
the organisational clout and the expertise for the creation of public
goods sought by other NGOs but out of reach for most individual actors.

For example:

- GIR provides an executive network for the representation

of the NGO community in their relations with third
parties (such as public institutions)

- CSDF provides expertise, training and information, and

manages grants for the benefit of other NGOs or third
parties interested by the NGO community

- CENTRAS, another umbrella organisation, has gathered

all influential actors in the civil society sector and
contributed to the creation of a number of notorious NGO
leaders and personalities

- the FIMAN foundation provides expertise and training in

human resources and a network of consultants
experienced in management, and acts as a local partner
for international consultative bodies

The centralization of so many roles has also brought up many issues,

including the understanding of the fact that regional actors and NGOs
need their own local ISOs. Some have questioned the pre-eminence of
such organisations and especially their established relations with donors,
which have encouraged some critics to talk about the elitism of their

63
leaders. On the other hand, basic skills and basic support for nascent
NGOs require the type of support that only ISOs can provide and some
donors have found themselves in a position where they had to build up
their own ISOs. But then again ISOs cannot be everything for everybody
and many have started to rethink their mission realising that this
positioning contributes to increased public image and managerial risks.

SOLUTIONS

- continue to gather support for ISOs and to diversify them

- assess areas where ISOs are most needed: sectorial

representation, know-how, public relations, information
etc

- support the development of regional ISOs

- progressively encourage ISOs to concentrate on strategic

thinking, mission assessment, representative and
sectorial grant giving functions rather than on
“encompass all” policies

Issue nr 2 Strengthen internal capacities of the

NGO sector
In Romania and elsewhere NGOs are competing for the same staff that
is, as a matter of fact, sought by most private entrepreneurs. From web
designers to experienced event planners, from good accountants to
prestigious sociologists, the skills required in a strong NGO are the same
skills that are scarce on an upwardly mobile market. There is also a trend
where NGO gather and train graduates but loose the best of them to
private entrepreneurs. Economic consideration are an extremely
powerful incentive when making career moves in Romania and a $
50/month increased wage can turn a successful media planner of an
NGO into a devoted marketed assistant for FMCG.

NGO careers are not seen as promising or tempting for most graduates
and even part time activities are challenged by the need for a fixed
minimum income. While there are some prestigious NGOs in Romania
offering decent (by Romanian standards) wages varying around 4 300-
1000 /month, most NGOs struggle to offer a minimum wage for their
administrative staff. Currently, it is at the logistical level (accountants,

64
secretaries, computer technicians) that most NGO have a hard time
rewarding their employees with decent remuneration. Funding schemes
offer generally little room for rewarding this type of staff on a regular
basis.

For more prestigious positions, things are slightly different: a prestigious

consultant or sociologist would probably have a full time job anyway and
will not be looking at an NGO for substantially increasing his monthly
package. His skills, on the other hand, are paramount to the success of a
program and relying only on volunteering and good will could not
necessarily be a long-term strategy for the sustainable development of a
program.

An institutional analysis provided by World Learning26 revealed that many

organizations confound their beneficiaries with their members, their staff
and their volunteers. On the other hand, the NGOs rarely involve their
members or volunteers in discussing strategic development or program
planning.

At its core, NGO development relies on volunteering and free association

of people with common goals. Hence, communicating with its own staff
and members is paramount for the success of an organization There is
also a current of opinion stating that reinforcing formal practices in an
organization, especially in relation to human resources, leads to an over-
bureaucratization and contradicts the philosophy of civil society.
Translated in practice, this current of opinion shows indulgence for such
practices as meetings without an agenda, decisions made on intuitive
rather than analytical or consultative grounds and speeches focusing on
human values or moral issues rather than practical purposes. Of course,
many organizations have as mission a role in providing moral or social
legitimacy to projects involving human attitudes but then again, the
model of mixing attitude and action messages seems unsustainable in the
long run in managing human resources.

NGOs need also to adjust their staff skills to their defined goal. Although
this seems logical, there are many organizations, which neglect this
simple rule. When providing alternative public services (or goods), NGOs
must have competitive staff, skills, and results (or prices). Enabling the
civil society means developing the kind of tools, skills and expertise in
providing specific public goods better than a private or governmental
institution. Some NGOs have successfully combining these assets and
have become reliable partners for media and private institutions.

26
World Learning, Democracy network program in Romania 1995-1999.

65
SOLUTIONS

 formal approach to human resources, which should include

transparent processes for decision making, stable task assignment
and task evaluation procedures, accountable indicators for any
activity (remunerated or not), planning and respecting schedules,
regular interaction and information exchange systems. In short,
this is where NGOs should treat their staff and members as other
professional organizations and act as accountable organizations
 a powerful and consistent policy for human resources. It should
involve management by objectives, ample time and energy allowed
for exchanging ideas, space and time for promoting new initiatives,
mission analysis and reassessment for goal sharing purposes. In
short, this is where NGOs should position themselves as providers
of social interactions opportunities and moral goals.
 Newsletters, regular, institutional established procedures for
exchanging information, meetings and brainstorming provide
interesting solutions for keeping staff and volunteers alike
committed to an organization

Issue nr 3
Improve NGOs impact assessment and
accountability procedures

NGOs need to adjust to a new climate of transparency in which

privileges are closely related to accountability, without sacrificing
their independent status and capacity for innovation.
Particularly damaging are perceptions that NGO workers are overpaid
and unduly influenced by foreign donors, or that they are dishonest and
that many NGOs exist only to exploit tax loopholes. Such attitudes were
not helped by the NGOs’ inability to agree on codes of practice for their
specific sectors or reluctance to submit to justifiable requirements for
transparency and accountability.

Impact assessment is crucial for the sustainable development of the

sector. Impact assessment is the critical link between mobilising
resources techniques and public legitimacy. Whilst every donor requires
an impact assessment of a specific program or project, there has been
little interest for broader, bolder, sectorial impact assessment or research

66
program. Comparative approaches or cost-benefit measurements have
been too often neglected since every sponsor or donor has rather choose
to evaluate and promote a specific program or approach. NGOs have also
limited impact assessment projects to specific actions while resource
centers such as the CSDF have focused on the broader role of civil
society or resolutions adopted by groups of NGOs as the main paradigm
for analysing the impact of the civil society actors.

On the other hand, there is huge need for comparative approaches,

especially in terms of tools and techniques, cost-benefits or arguments
for obtaining outsourcing or contracting out (to the civil society) of public
services.

Contracting out has been actively advocated by international finance

organizations including the World Bank, OECD, and the IMF and
national governments, especially Great Britain, on the basis that it
reduces the cost, increases the efficiency of public services, and helps
develop the private sector.27 On the other hand, some scholars on the
issue have reached mixed conclusions about whether contracting out
is more efficient and beneficial than in-house provision of public
services.28

Impact assessment must also take into account the societal environment,
the contributions of NGOs to innovation and representation needs. Short
sighted approaches, such as a an analysis presented in a report made by
Institutul Pro29, have focused their impact analysis of the civil society on
the flawed presumption that NGOs must respond to all societal needs
and aspirations and thus are accountable and responsible for failing to
address the public opinion agenda. Such presumption is the other side of
the conceptual coin claimed by some NGOs seeking to represent the
largest possible number of constituencies, issues and interests in order
to enhance their notoriety and credibility. An honest methodological
approach, which ought to be used both by NGOs and their critics, is to

27
See e.g. Council of (U.S.) State Governments, "Privatization", State Trends and Forecasts, Vol. 2,
Issue No. 2 (November 1993, Lexington, Kentucky); OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development), Contracting Out Government Services, Best Practices Guidelines and Case Studies
(Occasional Paper No. 20, 1997, Paris); United Nations Conference on Trade and Development,
Comparative Experiences with Privatization, (1995, New York and Geneva); United States General
Accounting Office, Privatization Lessons Learned by State and Local Governments, (1997, Washington,
D.C. GAO/GOD 97-48); World Bank, Christine Kessides, Institutional Options for the Provision of
Infrastructure (1993, Washington, D.C.). For discussion of some of the determinants of which public
services have been contracted out in the U.S. see Silanes, Shleifer, and Vishny, “Privatization in the
United States”, Rand Journal of Economics, Vol. 28, No. 3, Autumn 1997, pp. 447-471.

28
See e.g. Ascher, The Politics of Privatisation (1987, London, Macmillan); ed. Clarke, Thomas and
Pitelis, Christos, The Political Economy of Privatization (1993, London, Routledge).

29
Elitele sociale – societatea civila, Ana Bulai in 10 ani de adaptare, Institutul Pro, 2000.

67
provide a stable framework of analysis in impact assessment. The bottom
line of impact assessment is that NGOs, like other organisations, are the
sole responsible for their specific actions, hence the mistakes or the
errors made in one specific programs are to be carefully understood and
can not in honesty become an argument for blaming the whole sector.

SOLUTIONS

- Regular comparative analysis of NGO impact in selective

sectorial areas

- Impact assessment of NGO programs in socially sensitive

issues or arenas

- Clear distinctions between cost-benefit measurements,

innovation and representation needs for public goods in
impact assessment

- Making impact assessment procedures a complementary

tool for marketing and public relations campaigns

- Use creative design, meaningful information and credible

sources for project evaluation

- Dissemination of good practice principles

- Devise self regulation mechanisms that can be credible in

the eyes of media, the public or the government complete
with enforcement measure

- Create performance oriented NGOs which can mobilise

knowledge and individuals in order to reach collective
goals

Issue nr.4
Developing marketing, communication and
public relations campaigns for the sector

The sector as a whole lacks a consistent public image and a structured

coherent long-term campaign to enhance its image. Media coverage of

68
NGO actions is limited and, as always, media attention magnifies
spectacular issues, such as fraud, or conflict existing in one organisation
or another.

The main media scandal involving NGOs took place in 1998 and was
related to a hitherto existing legal loophole, which allowed the
development of second hand off-tax duties car import traffic under the
umbrella of developing an NGO. Both the traffic and the legal loopholes
were abolished but the public image of the NGOs was affected by this
scandal. Since then, the media still runs with some regularity a couple of
stories related to NGOs affected by fraud or being used by other
organisations, such as political parties to raise money.

The issue here is not if such cases are real (they mostly are) but why the
civil society in Romania as a whole is affected by bad press coverage of
some incidents, which are statistically irrelevant. For instance, a recent
poll devised by an NGO resource center has showed that people have
trust in the Church (90,1%) and the army (78,6%) rather than in NGOs
(25,7%), which have a slightly higher score than the Parliament (17,4%)30

Of course, both the Parliament and the NGOs are historically new
institutions in the post communist era and the Romanian public opinion
is less familiar with them than with the Army or the Church. So, even if
there were numerous scandals involving the Army (including crime,
corruption or waste of public funds), the trust of the population in it is
not affected. There seems to be also a great number of disproportionate
expectations from the public, hence they tend to expect from the civil
society answers, opportunities, solutions, resources that are not made
available by legitimate public or private institutions. Civil society has
become in the understanding of some citizens the miraculous cure and
sometimes the one to blame for all the problems of the society.

Most mistakes done by the NGOs in dealing with their public image are
thus not related to hard-core causes but to common sense errors or
omissions that can be solved with improved management techniques and
resources. The lack of an adequate training for the staff in charge with
public relations, the absence of marketing materials, the lack of reaction
to bad press are some of the problems identified by a recent report31

Developing marketing and public relations campaigns for the sector is

crucial for the development of the sector because it is ultimately

30
The White papers of the NGO forum, 1999, Centras.

31
Casanda BISCHOFF, Ioana ILEA, Dana STANCIU, Cartile albe ale forumului organiatiilor
neguvernamentale din Romania, CENTRAS, 1998. P 40 –60.

69
correlated to the level of trust in the civil society and it’s public
legitimacy.

Solutions:

Devise effective communication campaigns: coherent, consistent,

based on a clear message, systematic

Emphasize media attention through human touch stories.

Target communication campaigns to selected publics

Invest in PR and marketing vectors (leaflets, annual reports, web

pages)

Devise databases with media and influent public actors

Hire, train, assign competitive staff in public relations, media

relations and marketing

Promote tangible results with clear indicators

Involve other organisations in promoting NGOs through marketing

of successful experiences of their partnerships with NGOs sharing
common goals

Issue nr 5
Continue to educate public opinion about the
role of civil society

There is still little understanding at the broadest national level about

the role of civil society. Whilst there are huge potential untapped
resources for mobilisation and volunteerism, the level of public trust
in NGOs is low and it is correlated with the limited information most
citizens have about the civil society.

Furthermore, in the absence of well structured constituencies and

confronted with prevailing image flaws affecting the sector, the most
notorious NGOs have been the ones to mobilize resources and efforts for
issues, which are not high on the popular agenda: minorities protection,
political environment assessment, human rights… Socially vulnerable
groups are being alienated by an NGO focus on “changing mentalities”.
The theory and practice of social development remains suspect at the

70
conceptual level, with large areas of civil society still convinced that
international experience has little relevance to regional societal
transformation processes.

The way in which the Romanian society will progress and integrate new
market rules and new technologies depends on the role, the importance
and the promotion of a public space open to all citizens. This open space,
the civil society, must become an arena for exchanging knowledge,
information, opinions, confronting ideas and building consensus on
public choices.

SOLUTIONS:

- broaden programs to support the development if the

sector as a whole

- support social partnerships between government, civil

society and private institutions

- strengthen the advocacy skills of NGOs

- every citizen must be able to reach the public arena

debate

Issue nr.6
Enhance the scope of and improve the relations
with public authorities
In Eastern Europe, local governments are in an increasingly difficult
position in regard to the provision of public services. They need to
charge for services that have been provided for only nominal charges
for decades, upgrade service quality and/or make up for decades of
deferred investment. However, these steps need to be taken within
the context of severe budget constraints. Typically, local governments
do not have the room to impose additional taxes because national
income tax levels are very high. Furthermore, a significant portion of
the population cannot afford to pay for services32

32
The most extreme example is the case of low income and retired households served by district heating
(municipal central heating) which commonly costs more than half of household income in winter months.

71
In response to these developments, contracting out of public services
by local governments is becoming increasingly widespread. Such
contracting plays a critical rule in securing necessary capital for
investments in public services because local governments do not have
the ability to raise capital. Also, governments sometimes prefer to
delegate to enterprises or NGOs the role of undertaking cost reducing
measures in the provision of services.

The movement towards contracting out in Central and Eastern Europe

is a part of an international trend. In recent decades, throughout the
world, there has been a movement toward increased contracting out
of government services, as a part of the trend towards the
incorporation of cost concepts and competitive market principles into
the provision of public services. A principal theory behind contracting
out is that it decreases the cost and increases the quality of public
services. Contracted out services include basic utility services such as
water provision and refuse collection, park and road maintenance,
janitorial services, social services, collection of parking fees, and even
the operation of schools, prisons, and cemeteries.

Others have concluded that contracting out of public services may

serve other purposes such as: 1) a way of avoiding the constraints or
rigidities associated with public service provision of a service, or 2) a
method of decentralising the blame for failures.33

In any case, contracting out is a complex art of legal and practical

craftsmanship - which requires expertise. The switch from
government provision of a service to contracting out places the local
government in the role of a regulator of the price and quality of
services.

As of now, contracting out of public services in Central and Eastern

Europe standardly lacks transparency and is undertaken without the
resources or expertise commensurate with the magnitude of
importance associated with such contracts. Typically, local
governments enter into public service contracts without the
assistance of legal and technical experts and/or public access or
review of the contracts. While a great deal of attention has been paid
to procurement and tendering procedures, which are the subject of
detailed legislation in Eastern and Central Europe and the EU, very
little attention is paid to issues related to the actual contracts34.

33
Perri 6 and Jeremy Kendall, “Introduction”, The Contract Culture in Public Services (1997, Arena,
Hands, Great Britain)

34
World Bank, Country Assistance Strategy, 2001

72
SOLUTIONS:

- NGOs ought to build databases and become information

resource centers for public authorities

- Develop advocacy skills and represent community

interest in their relations with public authorities

- Participate in public debates such as the local councils

meetings

- Use opportunities and provisions raised by the EU

integration processes to simulate co-operation with local
authorities (i.e. partnerships for EU funding programs)

- Provide expertise, skills and know-how in selected areas

where NGOs flexibility and resources can contribute to
public policies decision making processes

Issue nr.7
Establish new forms of partnerships

Communities, social styles, cultural values and identities are not set once
for all but they are in a constant motion and transformation. People live
and share a set of values and activities while continuously reinventing
their environment and reshaping their interaction. The only thing that
endures forever is change.

Many social workers know from a first hand experience what prestigious
sociologists have shown35 for a while: social crisis and social tensions
arise not from situation of absolute poverty but from relative poverty, i.e.
when people make comparisons. Whereas constant poverty or injustice
provokes little tensions, rising expectations, new inequalities or changing
perceptions of social roles make people unhappy and trigger changes.

35
James DAVIS, American Sociological review, 27, 1962.

73
This is when NGOs can channel collective actions through democratic
means and contribute to deliberately formulate new goals and new
interests. Some of these interests can gather a few people some others a
few thousands or even more; the important role of the NGOs is that they
can help to express these interests in a structured and predictable frame
and become legitimate partners for established institutions.

NGOs as political parties, labor unions, private firms are in a sense

collective means for citizens pursuing distinct goals; as such they evolve,
change and adapt to specific changes in societies. One has to understand
that as such, NGOs can be created, evolve, merge, and disappear and
that a steady rate of changes reflects a positive trend: responsiveness to
changes in society.

Hence, establishing new forms of partnership and collective actions is

only a matter of identifying new ways to address change in society and
NGOs are in a particularly good position to do so because they ought to
represent exactly these issues that have not found a satisfactory
response from public or private structures.

The principle of subsidiarity, which promotes decision making at the

lowest viable level, has become a driving force for reshaping public
policies - both by NGOs and local government. Consequently, the
NGO-government relationship at local level will be unlikely to prosper
if local authorities and local NGOs perceive themselves obliged to
respond to instructions from central organisations whether of the
State or Civil Society. NGOs particularly need to ward against
bureaucratisation and the temptation to restrict their focus to the
target groups that are most easily reached – for example urban public
opinion concerns as opposed to preventative work in the community.
Shifting political priorities following electoral change at central and
local government is a risk of democracy that needs to be factored in to
building cross-sectorial relationships. Here too, the civil society has a
role to play by preserving the defense of local interests and actors
whereas central government political shifts represent the will of
majority.

SOLUTIONS

- Enhance NGO responsiveness to changes in society

- Create new partnerships between NGOs, media, public

institutions, sponsors

- Create and represent new services, interests and value

and address citizen’s agenda

74
 - Support the creation of partnerships models

- Provide strategic analysis of social trends for other

partners (such as public or private institutions)

- Test new forms and goals for community based actions

Issue nr 8
Build and serve constituency interests
In order to assume the roles of developing local democracies and
representing local interests, NGOs must embed the identity of their
community.

Community relations for an NGO comprise:

 understanding community needs / as opposed to assuming them
 addressing community agenda / as opposed to proposing an
independent agenda
 enhance relations with local authorities and business/ as opposed
to ignoring them or considering them hostile
 identify community leaders and work with them/ as opposed to
relying on the NGO’s own leaders only

A bold approach to community relations would trigger stronger advocacy

capacity for NGOs.

Advocacy is based on defining and addressing priority issues

for local communities in collaboration with public authorities…

The distribution of NGOs is critical to the development of the civil society

sector. The long-term development of the civil society requires
constituency building, i.e. the development of NGOS with solid local
legitimacy. Some critics have been arguing that NGOs in Eastern Europe
have a tendency to develop a technocratic approach to local communities
problem and that a growing gap was created between technical
solutions, frameworks and projects and grass-roots issues. Some reports
have stated that well-established NGO with strong leadership and
notoriety have not extended their skills and capacity to intermediary
regional support organisations.

75
There have been striking successful examples of NGOs developing from
a local or regional basis in Romania (especially in the North-West). There
are also some very successful stories of NGOs, which have proved their
abilities to mobilise support and resources for specific communities
(especially for ethnic or sexual minorities, students or cultural
movements). There is also much room left for NGOs seeking to develop
their constituency on social or public agenda grounds beyond urban
sophisticated interests.

A tricky issue about constituency building is that many NGOs have

sought to represent the largest number of constituencies, issues and
interests in order to enhance their notoriety and credibility. On one hand,
at the regional level, many inexperienced NGOs with little resources or
skills, thought that adding ambitious goals (such as influencing public
policies at the national level, contributing to the European integration…)
to their mission statement would make many more funding opportunities
available to them and attract public notoriety. Other, more notorious
ones, (such as Alianta Civica), have gone as far as claiming to represent
by themselves the entire civil society while others have wasted a great
deal of energy in denying other organisations the right to claim a specific
constituency. This approach has failed to ensure a durable legitimacy for
NGOs with multiple constituency claims and has created confusion in the
public arena. It has also supported the development of disproportionate
public expectations from the civil society when ordinary citizens have
started to consider that some NGOs are responsible for the deteriorating
economy or low wages since these NGOs were claiming a leading role in
providing all sorts of public goods and numerous interests at the same
time

Strategic thinking and clear mission statement assessment are

paramount for the sustainable development of civil society. Constituency
building encompasses a clear understanding of NGOs role as specific
actors of their local communities and interests not as substitute for
political parties providing all sorts of things for all sorts of people.

SOLUTIONS:

- Look beyond major cities and regional capitals to build up

local constituencies

- Develop constituency based on social or public agenda

- Engage in new forms of partnerships with a diversified

number of actors

76
- Define constituency based messages while taking into
account other forms of organisations representing similar
interests

- Enhance the understanding that NGOs activities ought to

meet priority community needs and can not assume all
the of them

- Create effective and realistic constituencies that are best

served by NGOs and which are not simply overlapping
other organisations (political parties, labor unions…)
constituencies.

77
CONCLUSION - EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY

The project “Making civil society work” is a research assessment of

the state of the civil society in Romania and a broader analysis of the
role of civil society in supporting the democratization processes in
Eastern Europe.

The analysis covers several issues including: the sector’s reading of,
and responsiveness to, changes in needs and interests, which arise
from shift in the broader social, political and economic environment,
the type and form of partnerships with local government and citizens’
associations, the availability of appropriate support and resources for
civil society development, the legal and social background.

This analysis has conveyed the experience of a group of Romanian

experts gathered, during the last ten years, in the process of
participation in the development of the civil society in this country.
Our analysis is based on the following assumptionss: a) a strong civil
society is a key element of the democratic endeavour; b) the goals,
values and strategies of Civil Society have to be determined by local
agenda; c) increasing crisis of legitimacy of public actors require
creative alternative community based initiatives

Although Civil Society has developed significantly in the first decade of

transition, we believe that its organisations, especially the NGOs, are in a
critical strategic reassessment phase. Many NGOs assessments consider
that individualism, lack of a donor culture, an absence of volunteering
and materialistic attitudes make their work with communities difficult.
Some think that social and political constraints hamper the development
of the civil society in Romania and provide inherent limits to its role and

78
impact. Others have developed disproportionate expectations about the
role of NGOs in a society suffering from numerous development
constraints and have grown increasingly disappointed by the results so
far.

Our approach is different and suggests that there must be a steady

expansion in opportunities created by the civil society to enable people to
make better choices. In short, civil society must work better and in a
more efficient way to provide results, representation and hope for
ordinary citizens. We have identified eight critical issues for the
sustainable development of the sector and for expanding opportunities
and roles in a democratic environment:

In modern societies, the pace of technological and social change is

accelerating and many communities risk to become marginalized and
progressively loose their ability to influence the events affecting them.
In Romania, which must confront the daunting challenge of devising a
development policy and progressively integrate the European
structures, the management of these risks is crucial for the success of
public policies. Public institutions legitimacy, economic reform, human
rights protection, social constraints, social integration, foreign policy,
poverty and identity questions are at stake and are all bound to
collective choices in the near future. One cannot overestimate the
need for a pluralist, actively involved, well-informed community of
citizens in formulating, understanding, devising, implementing and
evaluating these choices.

The recent past has shown that reform policy have been unsuccessful
when they have failed to mobilise public opinion support or when they
have produced unexpected and unmanaged side effects. Tomorrow's
development challenges will require a continuous formation and
information-sharing environment where active citizens will be able to
master and manage collective efforts of reshaping their society and
reassessing their needs.

It is our belief that the way in which the Romanian society will progress
and integrate new market rules and new technologies depends on the
role, the importance and the promotion of a public space open to all
citizens. This open space, the civil society, must become an arena for
exchanging knowledge, information, opinions, of confronting ideas and
building consensus on public choices.

79
METHODOLOGY

This report is based on an ample research conducted from May 2001 to

September 2001 and it involved

a) an analysis of most documents written about the Romanian civil

society, including the Charity Know How fund & Mott Report
(Strengthening Donors Strategies 2000), the IDEA Report on civil
society (1997), the White Paper of the Romanian Non Governmental
Organisations Forums, the CSDF annual reports, the strategic
assessments of UNDP, EU, World Bank, Stability Pact, Romanian
government, Romanian Presidency office for Civil Society Relations.

b) fieldwork in 4 Romanian regions

c) preliminary presentations of draft material to the GIR forum executive

board

d) in-depth interviews with NGO prominent leaders, public officials

(including governmental, presidential, local administration), media
actors involved in civil society. A total of 40 public opinion leaders

We would like to thank the American Development Foundation, the

Euro-Carpathian Foundation, GIR, the Civil Society Development
Foundation, for their support, which was essential for the completion
of this analysis.

We hope that this project will contribute to widen the debate and the
distribution of a review material already legitimated in public debates,
enhance the local actors knowledge of civil society affairs, encourage
exchange of thought and information across territorial and cultural
borders and contribute to stimulate a debate on critical issues for the
development of civ il society.

80