Region Report Central Asia and South Caucasus

Region Report Central Asia and South Caucasus Regional Reviewer: Roza Salibekova Institutional Affiliation: Independent Consultant With contributions from staff at the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy Overview of the Region Economy Population 2016* Capital GDP Per Capita* (US $) Official Language Most Represented Religion** Number of Registered POs Registration Levels Armenia 2,924,816 Yerevan 3,606.1 Armenian Azerbaijan 9,762,274 Baku 3,876.9 Azerbaijani Belarus 9,507,120 Minsk 4,989.3 Russian Belarusian Georgia 3,719,300 Tbilisi 3,853.6 Georgian Kazakhstan 17,797,032 Astana 7,510.1 Kyrgyz Republic 6,082,700 Bishkek 1,077.0 Kazakh Russian Kyrgyz Russian Christian- Armenian Apostolic Church (92%) Muslim (96%) (Shia & Sunni) Christian- Belarusian Orthodox Church (53%) Georgian Orthodox Christians (83.4%) Muslim (70%) (Sunni) Muslim (85%) (Sunni) ~4,000 (1) Central 2,700 (2) Central 2,829 (3) Central ~10,000 (4) Central 57,740 (5) Central State Local 15,655 (6) Central Russia 144,342,396 Moscow 8,748.4 Russian Orthodox (68%) 221,333 (7) Central * Current US $. World Bank 2016 ** US Department of State. Bureau of Democracy. International Religious Freedom Report for 2016 (1) Country Expert. (About 4,000 in 2014) (2) ICNL, 2017 (as of May 2013) (3) According to ICNL (2017) As of January 1, 2016, there were 15 political parties, 37 trade unions (33 national, 1 territorial, and 3 trade unions within organizations), and 2,665 public associations (225 international, 716 national, and 1724 local) registered in Belarus. There are 34 unions (coalitions) of public associations and 164 foundations (15 international, 5 national, and 144 local) registered in Belarus (4) Asian Development Bank. (2011) Civil Society Briefs (5) Asian Development Bank. (2015). Civil Society Briefs (As of January 2013) (6) ICNL, 2017 1

(7) Ministry of Justice, December 2017. Registered nonprofit organizations (24,468 autonomous nonprofit organizations). The Central Asia and South Caucasus region for the Global Philanthropy Environment Index includes seven of the economies that were part of the Soviet Union before its disintegration in late 1991. These economies are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, and Russia. The region has untapped abundant energy resource reserves and a strategic location that increases the interest of the world s most powerful economies besides Russia, such as China, and the United States. This has increased the awareness of Russia to prevent the spreading of external major powers on the region, creating a competitive arena where each of these countries tries to influence Central Asian economies and internal politics (Oliphant, 2013). However, Russia maintains its position as a key player in the region. Several countries in Central Asia still maintain strong ties with Russia and have large proportions of Russian populations, which have left a cultural mark in their countries (Sucu, 2017). There are also important economic links and Russian investments, as well as intergovernmental alliances like the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) led by Russia, and currently including Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. The CSTO s main task is to coordinate and deepen military-political formation of multilateral structures and mechanism of cooperation to provide national security of Member-States. Meanwhile, China is advancing efforts to open trade routes through infrastructure development in Central Asia, the Caucasus, Iran, Turkey, Russia and Europe the Silk Road Economic Belt aimed at reducing physical, technical and political barriers to trade and expand China s economic influence over the region (International Crisis Group, 2017). The economies in this region also have different socio-economic levels. In the Caucasian sub-region, Azerbaijan is the most prosperous state with oil and natural gas exports, while Kazakhstan, with extensive gas and oil reserves is the most prosperous of the countries in Central Asia. After gaining independence, Kazakhstan has emerged as a dominant state in Central Asia, both economically and demographically, and was one of the main promoters of the current Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), officially constituted in 2014, but with precedents in economic treaties that date back to 1995 with the Treaty on the Customs Union. The EAEU is an international organization for regional economic integration that provides free movement of goods, services, capital and labor between Member-States (Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Russia, and most recently Armenia). Although many economies in the region struggled, especially Russia, Belarus, Armenia and Azerbaijan, in 2017 (USAID, 2017), the Asian Development Bank reported economic growth over three percent in the Central Asian region thanks to the moderately rising oil prices. This growth came with high inflationary pressures especially in Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan. Remittances from Russia and Kazakhstan are also likely to increase, boosting the economy of remittance-receiving economies like the Kyrgyz Republic and Armenia. The current economic recovery of the region is viewed as a window of opportunity to secure higher and more inclusive growth (International Monetary Fund, 2017). The region presents a rich mixture of ethnicities, some of them within the same country, such as Azerbaijan, the Kyrgyz Republic, and Russia. Ethnic tensions are always present in the region such as the clashes between ethnic Kyrgyz and Uzbeks in the Kyrgyz Republic. In terms of educational levels, the UNESCO Institute for Statistics reports almost 100 percent literacy rates in the region with an estimated mean of years of schooling of 11.7 years in 2015. However, the educational levels vary from one country to another. In 2015, the gross enrollment ratio in tertiary education was higher 2

in Belarus (87.9%) and Russia (80.3%), and significantly lower in Kyrgyz Republic (47%), Kazakhstan (46%), Armenia (44.3%), Georgia (43%), and Azerbaijan (25%). Politically, all newly created nations in the region have elected presidents several times since 1991, but not all the elections have been considered free and fair. In several countries, presidents have been re-elected through elections that have been considered means to consolidate dictatorships. The Fragile State Index 2017 places all countries in the region in fragile state in relation to Legitimacy of the State, an indicator that considers factors related to corruption and lack of representativeness in government. Besides, according to CIVICUS (2016) several countries in the region Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, and Russia present challenges to human right organizations which face denial of the basic right of association and freedom of expression. In general, the civil society in these countries evolves alongside the political and economic processes in the post USSR period. Georgia has expressed its desire to become member of the European Union, and both have continued working towards a further deepening of Georgia's political association and economic integration with the EU. Summary Report In most countries in the region of Central Asia and South Caucasus, the philanthropic sector is still relatively new, weak, and highly dependent on government grants and/or external donors. Although the size of the sector has increased significantly since 1991, there are significant differences among countries. The different levels of development are sometimes related to the economic (like in Belarus) and regulatory conditions in each country, or tied to specific events. Several countries show the presence of an unfavorable legal environment that does not respond to the needs of the philanthropic sector (for example barriers to freely exercise the right to freedom of association). This leads to a poorly institutionalized sector with low levels of professionalization, lack of capacity for effective management, public relations and funding skills, and high levels of informal philanthropic activity. In recent years, some countries have created more restrictive conditions for the development of a sector that is already highly dependent on foreign funding, for example, labeling foreign-funded philanthropic organizations as foreign agents, as in Russia. Only in Georgia, organizations benefit from a favorable legal and regulatory environment, and are able to function without government interference. Some economies in this region maintain limited to moderately flexible tax incentives that support charitable programs and activities rather than charity organizations, while others offer tax incentives only to certain kind of donors. The limitations on the incentives to donate are observable not only in the percentage of taxable income but also in the potentially low effect of these incentives on the growth of philanthropy due to an insufficiently developed philanthropic culture in the region. In general, policies in the region seem to be more restrictive for receiving than for sending donations across borders, and several countries are almost solely recipients and rarely donors. In most of the economies in the region, philanthropic organizations operate under growing political control, high levels of scrutiny, and reduced government and international funding to certain types of independent philanthropic organizations. 3

Although civil society in the region is familiar with the concept of giving as part of traditional or religious practices, civil participation as part of the solution to social problems is slowly developing. Additionally, in many of these economies, corporate philanthropy is evolving, and middle class professionals are becoming more engaged in philanthropic activities. This hints that there is potential for the growth of philanthropy and for the creation of a more enabling environment. Figure 1. Global Philanthropy Environment Index Overall Scores, by Economy 3.18 3.31 3.33 3.42 3.83 3.86 2.30 Belarus Kyrgyz Azerbaijan Russia Armenia Kazakhstan Georgia Republic Source: Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, 2018 Global Philanthropy Environment Index 1. Growing in a difficult environment Key Findings In most economies in this region, the philanthropic sector is still relatively new, weak and highly dependent on government grants and/or external donors. Although the size of the sector has increased significantly since 1991, there are significant differences among countries. The average population per NGO ratio in the region is of one organization for every 1,346 people, and two countries Azerbaijan and Belarus have a population per NGO ratio much higher than the average (3,615 and 3,360 respectively). The population per NGO ratio in Kazakhstan is at a significant lower level (308) with fairly large philanthropic sector, followed by Georgia (371), Kyrgyz Republic (388), Russia (652), and Armenia (731). The different levels of development are sometimes related to the economic and regulatory conditions in each country, or tied to specific events. Several countries show the presence of an unfavorable legal environment that does not respond to the needs of the philanthropic sector, leading to a poorly institutionalized sector with low levels of professionalization, lack of capacity for effective management, public relations and funding skills and high levels of informal philanthropic activity. The poor economic conditions in Belarus and the lack of proper incentives and public policies have affected the growth of philanthropy as an institutionalized activity. However, the volume of private and corporate donations for charitable purposes has increased lately. From 2014 to 2016, the civil conflict in Ukraine served as a new challenge for philanthropic activities in Belarus, as it moved a great number of refugees and IDPs from Ukraine into Belarus. Both existing philanthropic 4

organizations and new initiatives got involved in solving the problem. They provided humanitarian aid outside the country, collected charitable aid in Belarus and transferred it to Ukraine, and helped refugees who moved to Belarus from Ukraine. In Armenia, the growth of the philanthropic sector occurred mainly after the 1988 earthquake that brought to the country large amounts of donations for humanitarian aid, contributing to the creation of local NGOs (Wierikko, 2017). In Georgia, the 2003 Rose Revolution that gave way to a peaceful change of government led by civil society protests implied a new stage of development for NGOs and in Azerbaijan, the modern nongovernment organization (NGO) sector began in the late 1980s when intellectuals avoiding persecution from the Soviet Empire formed organizations to provide support to displaced populations (Asian Development Bank, 2011). In recent years, some countries have created more restrictive conditions for the development of a sector already highly dependent on foreign funding. Since Russia passed the Foreign Agent Law in 2012, many NGOs have seen their sources of funding significantly decrease and have been forced to shut down (Human Rights Watch, 2017). The law establishes that a NGO (non-commercial organization) can be suspended if it carries out political activities or other activities considered to be a threat to the interests of Russia, or receives funds from U.S. citizens or organizations (Section 3.1).The amendment of 2014 authorizing the Justice Ministry to register groups as foreign agents without their consent and the subsequent amendment expanding the definition of political activity to include attempts to influence public policy have made the work of many organizations illegal. The new amendment of 2017 allows the Russia's Ministry of Justice to decide on assigning foreign agent label to international media outlets on a case-by-case basis. What could have been a similar situation in the Kyrgyz Republic was rejected by the Parliament in 2016, mainly due to the concerted work of the civil society in what is considered the most open democracy in the region (Standish, 2016). However, there is an observed trend in countries in Central Asia to replicate Moscow s example, sometimes mitigated by advocacy efforts of local civil society organizations. The Law of Grants was imposed in Azerbaijan in 2014 requiring foreign donors to obtain prior government approval to issue grants to NGOs in Azerbaijan. In the same vein, in 2017 a Kazakhstan court ruled that foreign grants received by two NGOs both promoting human rights were subject to corporate income tax. In contrast, Armenia recently passed a law in 2017 allowing NGOs to engage in entrepreneurial activities increasing their possibilities for financial sustainability. 2. Barriers to operation in several economies Freedom of association is guaranteed by law, and philanthropic organizations need to register with a central government office, which in some countries poses significant barriers. Belarus stands out as the country where the registration mechanisms are more complicated and the requirements for registration, in terms of number and citizenship status of members as well as costs, are difficult to meet. On top of this, the country forbids the operation of unregistered organizations. Operating unregistered organizations is also a prohibition in Kazakhstan, where non-citizens are prohibited to form non-governmental organizations. Similarly, Russia prohibits individuals with double US-Russia citizenship and stateless persons to form philanthropic organizations and although the process has become less burdensome, there remain restrictions to the constitution of certain types of organizations, depending on the goals pursued. In contrast, Georgia offers a registration system that is clear, predictable, and quick. The country offers opportunities for non-citizens to register nongovernmental organizations without the requirement of minimal capital. For 2015-2016, the major trend in Azerbaijan was the simplification of registration of NGOs (for example, donor registration, 5

grant registration, donation registration, and registration of service contracts). However, the registration of any income from a foreign source remains to be a problem. Several countries have shown an increase in the restrictions to operate non-governmental entities, labeling foreign-funded philanthropic organizations as foreign agents (no matter the amount funded) as in Russia. In Belarus, the environment for operating philanthropic organizations is almost as restrictive as the conditions for forming them and organizations can be shut down for single or minor violations. Laws to prevent money laundering and terrorism encompass severe standards on disseminating information, and increase control over financial activities of philanthropic organizations. Additionally, access to certain websites of organizations defending civil rights and watchdog initiatives are restricted. This restricted distribution of information is also present in Russia. In Kazakhstan, representatives and branches of foreign organizations have to submit information about their activities and funds every year and non-commercial organizations are subject to significant financial scrutiny by law. Conversely, in Georgia organizations benefit from a favorable legal and regulatory environment and are able to function without government interference. Figure 2. Scores on Ease of Operating Philanthropic Organizations, by Economy Form a PO Operate a PO Dissolve a PO Ease of Operating a PO 3.33 3.63 3.83 4.07 4.17 4.50 2.50 Belarus Russia Kazakhstan Armenia Azerbaijan Kyrgyz Georgia Republic Economy Ease of Operating a PO Form a PO Operate a PO Dissolve a PO Belarus 2.50 2.0 2.7 2.8 Russia 3.33 3.5 3.5 3.0 Kazakhstan 3.63 3.6 3.8 3.5 Armenia 3.83 4.0 3.5 4.0 Azerbaijan 4.07 3.7 3.5 5.0 Kyrgyz Republic 4.17 4.5 4.0 4.0 Georgia 4.50 5.0 5.0 3.5 Source: Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, 2018 Global Philanthropy Environment Index 6

Dissolving an organization is generally a voluntary act established in the legal framework of each country. Involuntary termination must be decided by a court and is subject to appeal in most countries. However, involuntary termination does not always occur based on clearly defined circumstances in the law like working against the constitution and laws (Kazakhstan). In cases like Azerbaijan, organizations can be suspended, or like in Belarus, terminated due to arbitrary and inconsistent interpretation of the law. 3. Tax incentives support mainly charitable programs and activities Some economies in this region maintain limited to moderately flexible tax incentives that support charitable programs and activities rather than charity organizations, while others offer tax incentives only to certain kind of donors. Russia offers income tax deductions to individual donors up to 25 percent of one s yearly income, but legal entities cannot claim tax deductions on donations to charities. In contrast, Georgia does not provide tax incentives to individuals. In Armenia, charitable organizations are not tax exempt; instead, the qualified charitable programs and activities implemented by these organizations are tax-exempted. The limitations on the incentives to donate are observable not only in the percentage of taxable income (4% in Kazakhstan and 10% in Belarus, Georgia and the Kyrgyz Republic) that are lower in comparison with Russia (up to 25%), but also in the potentially low effect of these incentives on the growth of philanthropy due to a not sufficiently developed philanthropic culture in the region. Figure 3. Scores on Tax Incentives, by Economy Making Domestic Donations Receiving Domestic Donations Tax Incentives 2.75 3.25 3.50 3.90 4.00 2.00 2.15 Azerbaijan Belarus Armenia Kyrgyz Russia Kazakhstan Georgia Republic Economy Tax Incentives Making Domestic Donations Receiving Domestic Donations Azerbaijan 2.00 1.0 3.0 Belarus 2.15 2.0 2.3 Armenia 2.75 1.5 4.0 7

Kyrgyz Republic 3.25 3.5 3.0 Russia 3.50 3.5 3.5 Kazakhstan 3.90 3.8 4.0 Georgia 4.00 4.0 4.0 Source: Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, 2018 Global Philanthropy Environment Index Organizations receiving donations are sometimes regulated based on the type of charitable donation (Georgia), the amount of donation non-charitable organizations are allowed to receive (Azerbaijan), and the type of program receiving the donation (Armenia). However, Russia and Kazakhstan offer better tax incentives for charity organizations. In Russia, donations to charitable activities are always tax exempt, and the process of receiving tax exemption requires a reasonable effort, while in Kazakhstan, organizations receiving income to support non-commercial activities can be taxexempted. 4. Unfavorable environment for receiving cross-border donations Figure 4. Scores on Cross-Border Flows, by Economy Sending Cross-Border Donations Receiving Cross-Border Donations Cross-Border Flows 3.00 3.50 3.50 3.50 4.00 4.00 1.60 Belarus Kyrgyz Armenia Azerbaijan Russia Georgia Kazakhstan Republic Economy Cross-Border Flows Sending Cross- Border Donations Receiving Cross- Border Donations Belarus 1.60 1.7 1.5 Kyrgyz Republic 3.00 3.0 3.0 Armenia 3.50 3.0 4.0 Azerbaijan 3.50 3.5 3.5 Russia 3.50 3.5 3.5 8

Georgia 4.00 4.0 4.0 Kazakhstan 4.00 4.0 4.0 Source: Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, 2018 Global Philanthropy Environment Index In general, policies in the region seem to be more restrictive for receiving than for sending donations, and several countries are primarily recipients and rarely donors. In terms of sending donations abroad, there are specific policies and financial regulations that limit the amounts of money sent and the recipient organizations abroad. The regulatory practices to control money laundering and other financial fraud in countries like Belarus and Kyrgyz Republic have restricted the funding opportunities for nonprofit organizations. In Belarus, the recently approved Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism Law in 2015 controls NGOs financial transactions closely potentially threatening cross-border donations. On the contrary, Kazakhstan has an open policy for sending donations, which may be counterproductive when it comes to money laundering. In reference to receiving donations, Belarus Decree #5 On Foreign Gratuitous Assistance strictly prohibits receiving foreign funding in three areas: extremist activities, political campaigns and seminars and other political propaganda work with the populations (Civic Freedom Monitor, ICNL. 2017) and foreign aid agencies are required to register with the Department of Humanitarian Activity. Other countries impose several barriers for receiving donations. There are no taxes and restrictions on receiving cross-border donations in Kazakhstan; however, a customs clearance is required and there is a customs fee involved. Further, individuals and organizations need to report foreign funding to the tax authorities within 10 days after the agreement is signed. Cross-border donations in Russia do not qualify for tax incentives and non-commercial organizations must keep separate records of incomes received from foreign sources. In Azerbaijan, there are no costs or taxes on receiving crossborder donations but approval from the authorities is required. The regulatory environment in Georgia provides greater flexibility and support to receiving cross-border donations by providing tax exemption, free approval and exemption from VAT. 5. Challenging political environment The information provided in the 2016 CSO Sustainability Index (USAID, 2017) suggests that several countries in this region have made minimal progress and even have experienced backsliding in terms of civil space. This situation is, according to the report, especially observable in Azerbaijan, Belarus, and Russia. According to the country expert of Azerbaijan the cooperation between the civil society and the government is improving. At present, there are at least nine state bodies and agencies that provide funding to local NGOs in millions of euro annually. At the same time, nearly all ministries have set-up public councils composed of NGO members and individual experts. The countries in South Caucasus, Armenia and Azerbaijan, present an environment that favors collaborations between the government and government-organized non-governmental organizations and lesser opportunities for independent organizations. Similarly, in several Central Asian countries, philanthropic organizations operate under growing political control, high levels of scrutiny, and reduced government and international funding to certain types of independent philanthropic organizations. 9

The Armenian government has funded and established a number of charitable foundations to promote community development, education, and repatriation. These charitable foundations actively partake in the implementation of national programs, obtaining the greatest proportion of government and foreign support, which creates inequality among actors in the Armenian philanthropic sector. In Kazakhstan, many projects supported by main donors are related to the main state interests, such as patriotism, national identity or national language and the Assembly of People of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the main coordinating agency of philanthropic activities in the country, is progovernment and considered a political agent rather than an independent actor. In the Kyrgyz Republic, philanthropic organizations are subject to tight controls and the lack of a sufficiently structured philanthropic sector has historically excluded philanthropic organizations from the main policy decisions affecting the sector (until recently with the movement to reject the foreign agent law). In Belarus, although slowly becoming more favorable for philanthropic organizations, government policies are still inconsistent, and restrictive of funding opportunities, especially for groups defending public rights, advocacy initiatives, and watchdog groups. However, the alteration to the regulations for receiving anonymous donations in 2016 and the establishment of the tripartite Council on International Technical Assistance, which boasts the participation of representatives of various state organs, donors of foreign aid, and philanthropic organizations, are positive examples of the institutionalization of social dialogue, which has prospects of success and growth in the future. Figure 5. Scores on Political Environment, by Economy Governance Public Policies Political Environment 2.75 2.80 3.00 3.00 3.50 3.80 3.80 Belarus Russia Kyrgyz Azerbaijan Armenia Georgia Kazakhstan Republic Economy Political Environment Governance Public Policies Belarus 2.75 3.0 2.5 Russia 2.80 2.8 2.8 Kyrgyz Republic 3.00 3.0 3.0 Azerbaijan 3.00 3.0 3.0 Armenia 3.50 4.0 3.0 Georgia 3.80 3.8 3.8 10

Kazakhstan 3.80 3.8 3.8 Source: Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, 2018 Global Philanthropy Environment Index Other countries in the region (Russia and Georgia) also present a mixed picture on how the government supports and collaborates with the philanthropic sector. The Russian government does not allocate significant financial resources to support charitable organizations, although collaboration seems to be growing. NGOs were very active to fill the welfare gap after the collapse of the Soviet Union and they survive as long as they do not show government-adverse political conduct that put them at risk of being labeled as a foreign agent. In Georgia non-governmental organizations were not fully involved in Georgia s transformation process, which led to a legal framework not completely supportive of civil society organizations and an environment of mistrust between government and the public, as well as missed opportunities for civil organizations to play a constructive and visible role in the development of the country. 6. Socio-cultural environment: Philanthropy as an institutionalized activity is yet to be fully developed. In general, civil society in the region is familiar to the concept of giving as part of traditional or religious practices and affiliations but philanthropy as an organized practice is new in all countries of the region. The deep-rooted charitable tradition in Russia supported by the Tsar and Russian elites in the Imperial Russia was either suppressed or broken during the communist regime, although some of its essential roots that marked the relationships between benefactor and the beneficiary have remained. Philanthropy and charity in the pre-soviet Russia connoted empathy and compassion toward the anguished and reflected...the rigid hierarchy of an authoritarian centralized state, the Russian-Byzantine version of the noblesse oblige principle legitimized and sanctified the discrepancy between the benefactor and the beneficiary (Dinello, 1998. p.113), a tradition that was continued by the Soviet state that became the sole provider of public goods and social wellbeing. In fact, organized charity was not permitted by the communist government in Russia. The development of private philanthropy only took place in the 1990s after the break of former Soviet Union and the emergence of a new financial elite. Figure 6. Scores on Socio-Cultural Environment, by Economy 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.5 3.5 3.8 4.0 Belarus Kyrgyz Georgia Armenia Russia Kazakhstan Azerbaijan Republic Source: Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, 2018 Global Philanthropy Environment Index 11

In each country, philanthropy has followed its own path, defined by the political and economic conditions to support the values of giving. Paternalism prevails in the culture of many of post-soviet societies, but civil participation as part of the solution to social problems is slowly developing. As a consequence, the culture of giving to philanthropic organizations is not well established. However, in many of these countries, corporate philanthropy is evolving, and middle class professionals are becoming more engaged in philanthropic activities. This hints that there is potential for the growth of philanthropy. In countries with the most severe regulatory conditions, like Belarus, informal philanthropy and charitable activity at the individual level are growing and developing in the vanguard of positive change and practices. 7. The future of philanthropy Corporate Philanthropy and Social Investment. In Kazakhstan, the approved concept of corporate social responsibility in 2016 may facilitate the acceleration of corporate giving. On February 2017, the Samruk Kazyna Trust social development foundation organized the first corporate charity forum to exchange experiences in promoting philanthropic initiatives and strengthening social responsibility. The Samruk Kazyna Trust is a major government corporation with interest in the development of business through the prism of social responsibility and creating a platform for social partnerships between business, government institutions and the nonprofit sector. The general idea is to move from charitable donations to systematic social investments applying innovative methods in charitable activity that can provide a long-term effect (Shatayeva, 2017). In Russia, corporate philanthropy started to develop during the nineties but at a very slow pace. Today, philanthropy from corporate and family organizations and domestic businesses has grown significantly. Major companies operating in Russia now have either in-house philanthropy programs or affiliated foundations, and private and corporate foundations provide millions of dollars-worth of assistance to Russian civil society (Javaline & Lindemann-Komarova, 2017). Drop in Remittances: The Russian economic crisis of 2014 plummeted the amount of remittances sent from Russian foreign laborers to remittance-dependent countries in Central Asia and South Caucasus over the last two years (The Economist, 2017) affecting the economic development in these countries, mainly the Kyrgyz Republic, Armenia and Georgia. This trend may continue until the ruble fully recovers. Additionally, there is the possibility that after recovery, Russia s economy will not urgently need the services of migrant laborers, negatively affecting remittances (Eurasianet, 2017). Religious giving: The growth of religious giving is an increasing trend in philanthropy in the Kyrgyz Republic. Mostly it happens during the Eid al Fitr, a religious holiday that emphasizes charitable activities. There are also some ongoing instances of formalization of the presence of religion in the laws, e.g. Islamic banking, as well as demonstrations of open support of prominent religious figures to presidential candidates in the elections of 2017, causing the protests of civil rights groups. Stronger Civil Society: In most of the countries there is growing interest and activism for civil rights and democracy. The rise of the middle class in many of these countries is significant. Although, in most parts, the philanthropic sector is relatively new and supported by government and external donors, there is a growing awareness and understanding of civil society organizations to shape the political and social map of the countries in the region. There is a firm trend to 12

continue to resist government pressures and pressure from other conservative or pro-russian political forces while negotiating with the government ways to create a better political and regulatory environment to increase governance and stability. Crowdfunding. The increasing use of the Internet and social media increases the prospect for crowdfunding in this region. Especially in the Kyrgyz Republic, there is an emerging trend of collecting funds through social media for various ad hoc purposes. The most recent example was a plane crash that hit the village near the airport in the beginning of 2017 prompting massive public charitable giving. There were a number of activities promoted through social media, and this trend has become increasingly present. Also in Belarus, the initial boom of POs crowdfunding projects influenced the spread of this practice to attract local resources to all civil society segments. References Asian Development Bank. (2011). Civil Society Briefs: Azerbaijan. Retrieved from https://www.adb.org/publications/civil-society-briefs-azerbaijan Asian Development Bank. (2017). Asian Development Outlook (ADO) 2017 Update: Sustaining Development through Public-Private Partnership. Retrieved from https://www.adb.org/publications/asian-development-outlook-2017-update CIVICUS. (2016). Civil Society Watch Report. Retrieved from https://www.civicus.org/index.php/socs2016 Dinello, N. (1998). Elites and Philanthropy in Russia. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 12(1), 109-133. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20019957 Eurasianet. (March, 2017). Central Asia s Remittances: Take Two. Retrieved from https://eurasianet.org/s/central-asias-remittances-take-two Fund of Peace. (2017). Fragile States Index 2017. Retrieved from http://fundforpeace.org/fsi/ International Crisis Group. (July, 2017). Central Asia s Silk Road Rivalries. Europe and Central Asia Report N 245. Retrieved from https://www.crisisgroup.org/europe-central-asia/central-asia/245- central-asias-silk-road-rivalries International Monetary Fund. (2017). Middle East and Central Asia. Regional Economic Outlook: Middle East and Central Asia. Retrieved from http://www.imf.org/en/publications/reo/meca/issues/2017/10/17/mreo1017 Javeline D. & Lindemann-Komarova, S. (2017) Indigenously Funded Russian Civil Society. PONARS Eurasia. Retrieved from http://www.ponarseurasia.org/sites/default/files/policy-memospdf/pepm496_javeline_lindemann-komarova_nov2017.pdf Oliphant, C. (2013) Assessing Russia s Role in Central Asia, Foreign Policy Centre. Center for Security Studies. Foreign Policy Center. FPC Briefings. Retrieved from https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/169385/assessing Russia's Role in Central Asia.pdf Shatayeva, L. (March, 2017). Philanthropy indicator of society s maturity, say corporate charity forum participants. The Astana Times. Retrieved from https://astanatimes.com/2017/03/philanthropyindicator-of-societys-maturity-says-corporate-charity-forum-participants/ Standish, R. (2016, May 12). NGOs Avert Russian-Inspired Restrictions in Central Asia s Only Democracy. Foreign Policy. Retrieved from http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/12/ngos-avertrussian-inspired-restrictions-in-central-asias-only-democracy-kyrgyzstan-foreign-agents/# 13

Sucu, A. E. (2017). The importance of Russian military presence in central Asia for Russia s regional security. Academic Elegance. Presented during the 4. Annual Conference on Eurasian Politics and Society in July 2017. Retrieved from http://dergipark.gov.tr/download/article-file/394579 The Economist (January, 2017) From Russia with love. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21688441-remittances-are-goodthing-except-when-they-stop-russia-love USAID. (2017). 2016 CSO Sustainability Index for Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia. Retrieved from https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1866/csosi_report_7-28- 17.pdf Wierikko, P. (2017). Armenia s Social Sector: An Analysis of Armenia s Nonprofits. Capstone Collection. 3002. Retrieved from http://digitalcollections.sit.edu/capstones/3002 14