Transparency of Media and CSO Funding (BA0016)

Which public issue does the obligation address? Lack of clear criteria for the allocation of public funds is directly related to the transparency of both government institutions and all other segments of society. As one of the basic postulates of a democratic society, it is based on the assumption that public information must be available and citizens informed about the work of institutions and decisions made on their behalf. This type of profiled transparency, as provided by this measure, increases the responsibility of decision-makers in performing public functions, reduces the space for corruption and abuse of powers and contributes to making better decisions of public interest. On the other hand, all other segments of society, which take part in the purposeful spending of budget funds in interaction with the public sector, should create realistic preconditions for their activities and financial framework to be available to the general public in BiH. Such balanced relation opens up the possibility for an overall consideration of dedicated public funds spending.

What is the obligation? This measure aims to establish clear criteria for allocating budget funds to the media and CSOs, as well as to provide proactive transparency of procedures for allocating and spending budget funds to the civil society organisations and the media. The measure provides the necessary introduction of obligations for all BiH institutions to publicly disclose data on the amount and purpose of funds allocated to the civil society organisations and the media. There is also an obligation for the media and CSOs to publicly announce the expenditure of allocated funds, with an explanation that clearly shows the intended use of those funds.

How does the obligation contribute to resolving the public issue? Considering the importance of proactive transparency as a precondition for the prevention of corruption, a systematic and transparent process of allocating public funds based on unique criteria, creates the basis for a higher level of efficiency in this area with consistent compliance with the principle of impartiality and fairness in public funds management.

Why is this obligation relevant to the OGP values? Transparency of the process and elimination of the risk of abuse of discretionary powers in the process of allocating public funds, as well as responsibility of public administration in spending funds on projects and programmes of public interest.

Goals/activities

Defining criteria and their communication with BiH institutions 1 January 2023 - 31 August 2024

Ensured transparency in the allocation of public funds 1 January 2023 - 31 August 2024

Action Plan Review

Commitment 9. Improving budget allocation transparency

● Verifiable: Yes

● Does it have an open government lens? Yes

● Potential for results: Modest

Commitment 9: Improving budget allocation transparency

Agency for the Prevention of Corruption and Coordination of the Fight against Corruption, Ministry of Finance and Treasury

For a complete description of the commitment, see Commitment 9 in Bosnia and Herzegovina’s 2022–2024 action plan: https://www.opengovpartnership.org/documents/bosnia-and-herzegovina-action-plan-2022-2024-december/.

Context and objectives

This commitment seeks to establish voluntary criteria to encourage state-level government institutions to proactively publish the amount and purpose of public funding allocated to media and civil society organizations. It would also introduce voluntary criteria for media and civil society organizations to disclose the use of those funds with clear description publicly. The commitment stemmed from the proactive transparency commitment in the previous action plan. [39] Civil society and the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption and Coordination of the Fight against Corruption (APCCFC) consider questionable discretionary funding by government institutions to be a priority issue within the scope of this commitment. [40]

In 2020–2021, BiH government disbursed EUR 61.5 million to civil society organizations. [41] Much of these funds were allocated to sport clubs, veteran organizations, and religious communities. Almost half was distributed at the local level although only 3% of the funds were provided by state-level governments. [42] In 2020, the Council of Ministers adopted the Rulebook on the Criteria for Financing and Co-Financing Projects in Areas of Public Interest Implemented by Associations and Foundations. [43] However, it is not clear whether the voluntary criteria developed through this commitment would be based on the rulebook.

A 2021 survey found only 3.5% of civil society organizations in BiH believed government allocation of funds was transparent. [44] The BiH OGP point of contact notes that there is no data available on the actual size of funds allocated by the government [45] as many institutions do not publish detailed information about civil society funding [46] or offer clear justification for funding decisions, resulting in lack of accountability and suspicion of politically-motivated allocation, [47] especially at the local level. [48] A civil society report stated that some civil society organizations act less and less as watchdogs or monitors, [49] while an APCCFC representative said budget allocation for media and civil society organizations remains a grey area that creates space for discretionary decisions and could lead to misuse of public funds. [50]

The APCCFC representative reported that this commitment would produce clear criteria to disclose allocation of budget plans, public tenders, public notices, and budget implementation report from government and civil society alike. [51] Transparency International BiH confirmed that the criteria would define the entire budget allocation and decision-making processes—from the election of a committee to the identification of potential conflicts of interests—which are linked to the government’s integrity plans. [52] However, this would target state-level institutions, which make up only a small portion of government funding for civil society and media organizations. They also reported about plans to develop an online portal to publish a database of government information and documents. [53] Media and civil society organizations are expected to publish data of the budget allocation and implementation on their websites as well.

Prior to the commitment, Transparency International BiH published a repository monitoring the distribution of public funds to associations and foundations registered in the country. [54] However, these data are collected via information requests, official gazettes, public procurement databases, and manual search of government websites. [55] As a result, they are not exhaustive and may not be accurate. By developing the online portal, this commitment could improve the quality of budget allocation information available to the public.

Potential for results: Modest

Transparency International BiH notes that the planned criteria would not be mandatory, [56] meaning the potential for results from implementing this commitment are modest. Civil society organizations and the anti-corruption agency will discuss the criteria for proactive disclosure and consult state institutions such as the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Finance of BiH, to encourage implementation. A representative noted that the APCCFC is confidence about the adoption of the criteria, but expect interactions between institutions to initially be negative or even hostile. This could potentially delay implementation while they convince government institutions about the importance and necessity of disclosing this information. [57]

Successful uptake of these criteria could generate modest improvement to public funds transparency at the state level, which could indirectly reduce the misuse of funding and strengthen the independence of civil society and media projects. However, its impact would depend on the ability of citizens to access information on budget and spending decisions and allocations by all state-level institutions.

Opportunities, challenges, and recommendations during implementation

The main concerns regarding this commitment implementation include unclear institutional responsibility to manage and maintain the procurement database and its voluntary nature. Currently, it is a choice between the Ministry of Finance or the APCCFC—the latter of which has begun preparing to hold discussions with other public institutions to explain the discrepancies in their budget implementation reports within the scope of this commitment. [58] Lack of institutional understanding and proactive implementation could derail the commitment from achieving its desired results.

As such, the IRM suggests the following actions to benefit implementation:

● Systematically include participation by civil society organizations in commitment implementation oversight, including in the development of the voluntary criteria and data portal. Implementers need to ensure that this commitment’s activities do not restrict civil society from operating effectively and contributing positively to their independence. Collaboration with civil society in developing the voluntary criteria could address questions regarding frequency and timeliness of information updates, as well as the adoption of open data format and disclosure of comparable datasets.

● Develop a state-level engagement strategy to build compliance with the criteria across institutions. Given its voluntary nature, sanctions for non-compliance would be limited. As such, it may be necessary to create incentives by, for example, recognizing those that perform well through institutional awards or publishing digestible information in compliance with the criteria. It would also be important to assess whether sanctions would be effective in encouraging greater compliance and deterring non-compliance. Estonia’s experience in developing a public online monitoring tool to enable citizens to compare the performance of local municipalities within a specific range of domains—from the provision of communal and social services to open government practices—could be useful for reference. [59]

● The APCCFC could conduct outreach to lower-level government institutions to encourage the disclosure of information on the allocation of public funds for civil society and media organizations. Given that almost half of the funding for civil society and media organizations are distributed at the local level, this could have a strong impact on overall transparency.