Freedom of association and assembly

Participants expressed the view that COVID-19 presented a challenge to the activities of organised civil society, as remote meetings had become the only option. However, it was noted that such remote meetings made it possible for a broader scope of civil society representatives to participate in the working groups organised by the ministries. At the same time, the attendees of the discussion agreed that the meetings were often carried out with the intent to relay information to the CSO representatives rather than to have a discussion and receive their feedback. The government officials were adamant that there had been plenty of constructive meetings with CSOs during the pandemic.

On the topic of funding, CSO representatives shared that the lack of financial and human capital were the biggest obstacles in achieving their goals. Although the COVID-19 pandemic had had a positive impact on state funding for non-governmental organisations, in general there was a lack of a systematic approach and data to make it easier for them to apply for financing opportunities. The participants were pleased with the establishment of an NGO Fund under the Ministry of Social Affairs, which had started its activity in 2021. A new law providing state funding to NGOs had been adopted in 2021 but did not enter into force as the Constitutional Court had ruled that certain amendments were needed. CSO representatives were worried about the delays in funding and the resulting halt to their activities caused by inefficient policymaking. Another negative aspect noted by the participants was that the share of Recovery and Resilience Facility funds allotted to the public sector compared to the private sector actors providing public services was disproportionate, with the majority of the funds being aimed mainly at the public sector.

Furthermore, it was said that the change of government that took place in the autumn of 2021 had interrupted cooperation between the CSOs and the State, but the disruption had been temporary and soon it resumed as usual. A negative development noted by the CSO representatives was the high number of legislative proposals and amendments that were submitted to the ministerial working groups. Often it was difficult to keep track of the parallel processes, and this diminished the quality of input the CSOs could provide to policymakers.

Participants also reflected on some recent restrictions on freedom of assembly. For example, different municipalities had denied requests from the LGBTIQ+ community and from those opposing same-sex marriage to organise public meetings in September 2021. The former, however, was eventually granted permission after a court appeal. It was noted that the announcement of an emergency situation at the border with Belarus had temporarily limited access to the area to journalists and NGOs. Once the restrictions were lifted, the NGOs successfully cooperated with the Ministry of the Interior and were able to provide humanitarian aid to the migrants.

A participant shared that Lithuania was the host of around 200 Belarussian CSOs that would be unable to exist in Belarus. Establishing a CSO in Lithuania as a foreigner was seen as a complicated process, burdened also by the reluctance of Lithuanian banks to provide services to Belarussian nationals. Furthermore, the speaker noted that the strict transparency requirements that were being applied to Lithuanian NGOs may harm Lithuanian-based Belarussian organisations that often needed protection and anonymity for the safety of their members.