Press release: New law on social and child care – a road to real changes?

Driven by the ongoing reform of social and child protection, IA has submitted to the Ministry on Labor and Social Welfare the comments on the Draft of Law on Social and Child protection aimed at improving the quality of protection of beneficiaries of social rights. Certain provisions need to be changed and better defined in order to establish clear legislative framework protecting the interests of every (potential) beneficiary of rights in the system of social and child protection.

Commitment to the reduction of the so called “poverty trap” and to the development of workfare programs for beneficiaries capable of integrating into the labor market represents a step ahead of the current legislation. This poverty reduction is achievable through the development of workfare programs and suitable reform of employment policy. However, the Draft Law on Social and Child Protection does not oblige centers for social work to make an individual plan of activation for every (completely or partially capable for work) beneficiary of financial aid, but leaves this to the centers’s discretione. IA considers that that is not a proper way for permanent solution of the social situation of beneficiaries. Individual plan of activation must be binding for all beneficiaries capable for work in order to reduce potential abuses and rationalize the budget expenditure by directing the aid only to those who have to be provided with the state support due to the objective reasons. . The Law on Social and Child protection should sanction breaching the individual plan of activation, by, for example, temporarily terminating the financial aid.

The chapter which regulates provision of social services represents a certain progress, if compared with the current law. This chapter leaves significant space to civil society organizations and private sector to provide social services. Establishment of the license system and program accreditation will ensure standards of social services quality. However, IA considers that shelter as one of the accommodation services should be clearly defined by indicating the purpose and potential target groups of this service, or indicating the special bylaw regulating the terms of use of this service.

Regarding the deinstitutionalization, decentralization and development of local social services, as the basis of the social reform process, it is necessary to establish the normative framework and clearly define the role of local government in social and child protection.

Strengthening the capacity of social work centers by introducing the new methods of work, professional trainings, supervision, projects’ management compatible to the people’s needs and improving the principle of good governance are the priorities to be defined in the Law on Social and Child Protection. According to the 2009 Report of the State Audit Institution on the social work centers, the managing board of those centers had held only one meeting per year on the average. Given the responsibility of these bodies, IA considers this alarming.

Dragana Radović

Policy Analyst

Press release: A critique of the proposed Law on Social and Child Protection prepared

The Government of Montenegro adopted the Bill of Law on Social and Child Protection on July 26. The large number of remarks submitted by the representatives of the CSOs haven’t been approved.

Remarks indicating the necessity of clear division of jurisdictions and responsibilities of local governments in the exercising rights procedure and provision of social services haven’t been adopted.

The Bill of Law still leaves the possibility for local government to provide better conditions for exercising rights in social and child protection but it is not obliged to do so. In this way the principle of decentralization in the Bill of Law on Social and Child Protection has not been confirmed as the basis of the social and child protection reform.

Commitment to the employment of the beneficiaries of financial aid capable for work is not convincing having in mind that the individual action plan is still non-binding but depends on the evaluation of professionals in the social work centers.

Instead of limiting the right on financial aid, IA considers that it is more effective if the individual plan of activation is obligatory and if more attention is dedicated to the development of workfare programs and closer cooperation between relevant institutions. The Bill of Law provides exclusion from the limitation of this right only to the parents of children with disability.

Child allowance is not defined as the universal right for every child regardless of the number of children in family. Compared with the law in force the advantage provided by the Bill of Law is that the right on child allowance is transferred to another child in family after the termination of use of this right by the older child. In that way right on child allowance can be exercised by three children in family. The Ministry on Labor and Social Welfare has selectively defined social services. Thus it is still not clarified what these services assume and which target groups they are intended to (for example : social therapy, shelter etc.).

Thereby, there is a still a risk from the small number of licensed applicants during the procurement of these services because of the unclear formulations about service itself.

This is very important having in mind that organizations of civil society, profit sector, individuals and legal entities also can be providers of social services in accordance with the law provisions regulating the public procurement procedure and public-private partnerships. IA considers that the great step forward has been made in the process of deinstitutionalization because of the provision which forbids the accommodation of child younger than three years in the children’s facility, Instead in 2017, as planned this provision will enter into force in January 2013. Although the growth of children in a healthy family environment suits to the best interest of a child, this provision should be taken with reserve because the foster care and adoption as the alternative forms of social and child protection still have to develop.

Dragana Radović
Public Policy Researcher

Jovana Marović on EU accession negotiations for Dan

Journalist’s questions:

How the candidate country negotiates with the EU for membership? Is there really something to negotiate about?

How many years the negotiation process could take?

Answers of IA’s research coordinator and member of the Working Group on Chapter 23, Jovana Marović:

Negotiations of the candidate country with the European Union for membership in this supranational community include a complete harmonization of national legislation with the acquis. So, there is no negotiation about whether certain EU rules have to be adopted and implemented. Each state is obliged to fully harmonize legislation with the acquis in order to become a member. However, certain rules may be subject of negotiation for the interim period (after EU) which is necessary for the state to adopt and implement specific legal regulations. Although the EU may grant transitional periods for certain regulations, these periods are very time-limited and must not affect the functioning of the EU internal market.

It also should be highlighted that the negotiations under chapter 23, Judiciary and Fundamental Rights, are particularly demanding. In this chapter the harmonization of legislation with the acquis is accompanied with additional conditions that are reflected in the concrete cases in the field of fight against corruption and human rights violations.

The European Commission will, on the basis of the previous progress reports of Montenegro and, primarily, the report of compliance of Montenegrin legislation with the acquis, submit Montenegro opening benchmarks for Chapters 23 and 24. Benchmarks will most likely involve the need to adopt action plans for judicial reform, the fight against corruption, etc. Completion of these obligations from the action plans depends on the set deadlines, and also real commitment to fulfill these obligations. The European Commission will closely monitor reforms even after the temporary closure of certain chapters. It is clear that, without full compliance of benchmarks chapters could not be opened or closed.

In practice, it is possible to accompaniment requirements, especially on the closing benchmark within a given chapter. Closing benchmarks are complicated set up. It also depends on the duration of negotiations and it can happen that, within this period, a regulation could change on EU level. (For example: One of the criteria for closure of chapter 23 in Croatia was the requirement to improve the efficiency of the judiciary. Closing benchmarks that were defined in 10 requirements first were supplemented with 22 additional conditions, and in the end the number of conditions reached number 80).

With the compliance of the criteria, chapter is closed temporarily, because there is no final closure until the all chapters are closed.

It is unthankful to talk about any deadlines and potential years of joining the EU, especially when one takes into account that the duration of the negotiations depends only on the tempo of the acquis and additional requirements adoption. In this direction, limited administrative capacities for the implementation of the acquis may represent the barrier, and, in particular, the lack of political will to implement reforms.

Although there are estimates that the process in Montenegro could be shorter than for example in Croatia, it should not be ignored the possibility that the lack of progress under Chapter 23, as well as a fundamental violation of human rights, can block the whole process of negotiations.

Montenegro is entering the most challenging phase of the accession process. Progress within this phase depends on the speed of the fulfillment of requirements that will be set by Brussels.

Jovana Marović

Research Coordinator in the Institute Alternative

Who Still Cares For the Committee’s Conclusions?

Supreme State Prosecutor and Administration for Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing didn’t fulfill the obligations, envisaged by the conclusion from the February’s control hearing, conducted by the Security and Defence Committee. They failed to meet the deadline for submitting information about the activities they undertook in examining allegations about the corruption during and after the privatisation of Montenegrin Telekom.

Security and Defence Committee conducted a control hearing of Supreme State Prosecutor and director of Administration for Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing on February 14. The two were questioned about the so far activities of the competent authorities on the case.

Following the control hearing, the Committee adopted conclusions which, among other things, demanded from the participants of the control hearing to inform the Committee about the activities on the Telekom case by May 2012. The afore mentioned insitutions neither respected the deadline nor they requested the necessary information.

Committees’ conclusions, which are adopted after the control hearins, are usually downgraded to the abstract encouragement of the authorities to undertake activities already asigned to them by the Constitution and relevant laws. The February’s conclusion is among the rare conclusions which consisted additional obligation for the subjects of control hearing, precise deadline for meeting this obligation and relatively clear definition of the requested information.

However, the current attitude of institutions is unacceptable and it demonstrates the lack of responsibility of representatives of executive power in front of the MPs. Neglecting the obligations defined by the parliamentary working bodies is an insult for MPs, working bodies’ members, and the entire parliament. Apart from reminding on this obligation, members of the Security and Defence Committee should demand from the Supreme State Prosecutor and director of the Administration for Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing explanation for not obiding their request and clearly condemn such behavior.

On the other hand, the non-existence of efficient mechanisms for the monitoring of the implementation of the adopted conclusions represents the shortfall of the Parliament and its working bodies, and it endangers the efficiency of parliamentary oversight.

Marko Sošić
Public Policy Reseacher

Public policy school – 2012

Motivated by the fact that the formal education system in Montenegro does not offer sufficient knowledge and skills in the study of public policy, Institute Alternative started in February 2012 realization of the Public Policy School. Program was realized in collaboration with the Centre for Monitoring (CEMI), with the support of the Commission for the allocation of revenue from gambling. The aim of the School is to contribute to the quality development of public policy in Montenegro by strengthening the capacity of stakeholders in policy development. School also has the goals to raise the level of understanding of the policy development among key stakeholders, and strengthening communication and cooperation among participants from various sectors, institutions and organizations.

The first generation of 30 participants has had the opportunity to attend the five modules. The first four modules included a series of lectures and practical work (workshops), while the fifth training module provided tehnics of effective practical policies writting.

Professors from the University of Zagreb, Belgrade and Podgorica, and other eminent experts and activists, practitioners of public policy presented to students the public policy cycle (creation, implementation and monitoring process).

Program was completed with diploma award presented by the IA’s president of the Managing Board Stevo Muk, on 11 July 2012.

Non-Governmental Organisations To Monitor Implementation of Reforms Within the Chapter 23

Upon the initiative and under a coordination of the Centre for Development of Non-governmental Ogranisations, the coalition of NGOs for monitoring the negotiations about the Chapter 23 was established. The long term goal of the coalition is to bring tangible improvement of standards of living of Montenegrin people.

Coalition is consisted from organisations, experienced in the fields covered by the Chapter 23: Centre for Development of Non-Governmental Organisations (CRNVO), Centre for Civic Education (CCE – CGO), Juventas, Human Rights Action (HRA), Centre for Monitoring and Research (CEMI), Centre for Democracy and Human Rights (CEDEM), LGBT Forum Progress, Institute Alternative, European Movement in Montenegro, NGO Women’s Safe House, SOS Phone For Women And Children Violence Victims Niksic, Centre for Women’s Rights, Roma Scholarship Foundation, Montenegro’s Association of Youth With Disabilities, Centre for Anti-Discrimination “Equista“, and NGO Anima.

The coalition members have gone thourgh several months long trainings about the issues covered by the Chapter 23, about the monitoring and reporting methodologies and creation of communication strategy, having as a role model the Croatian coalition of NGOs for monitoring negotiations about the Chapter 23, which was the first coalition of that kind in the region. Also, they had an opportunity to talk to the most significant figures in Croatian civil and public sectors, as well as to the representatives of the EU Delegation in Croatia. Trainings and consultations are part of the project, jointly realised by the CRNVO and Centre for Peace Studies from Zagreb. The key result of the project is the Coalition’s establishment.

We welcome opening of the accession negotiations between the EU and Montenegro, and we announce that we will closely and continuously, during the entire negotiation process, monitor implementation of reforms in the fields composing the Chapter 23 – judiciary, fundamental human rights and freedoms, and anti-corruption policies. We will regularly inform the local and international public about all the deficiencies and improvements with regard to these issues. We will also advocate changes of legal, institutional and implementation framework, aiming at the long term improvement of human rights in the country and at establishment of the rule of law.

We also think that the Government of Montenegro should not repeat the mistakes of certain EU member states, whose membership talks were marked by the high level of secrecy. By contrast, Government should, since the very beginning of the accession negotiations, continuously inform people about the process and the reforms’ impact on the people’s every day lives.

Therefore, we urge the Government to respect the transparency principle, highlighted in its many strategic documents, and provides a timely information about the opening and closing benchmarks, the reports about implementation of obligations defined by the benchmarks and negotiating positions for the Chapter 23 but other chapters as well.

Coalition is open for all the NGOs, eager to share its knowledge and experience and thus contribute to the essential changes in the areas of human rights, fight against corruprtion and judiciary reform in Montenegro, while simultaneously sharing the current members’ values.