(CDB Forum 2019) Professor Jia Xijin on the Overseas NGO Law

中文 English
This is a translation of the talk that prof. Jia Xijin, from Tsinghua University’s School of Public Policy and Management, gave at the CDB Forum 2019, held in Beijing on the 11th of November. The talk reviews the implementation of China’s law on Overseas NGOs over the last three years, and discusses how NGOs from around the world can continue thriving in China in the future. We have also included translations of some of the graphics that Prof. Jia presented during her talk. You can find the original version of the talk in Chinese here.

 

2

A review of the first three years of the “Overseas NGO Law”

 

As you all know, the “Law on the Management of the Activities of Overseas NGOs within Mainland China” has been in effect for three years already, so I would like to take this opportunity to review the situation from two angles: the legal system, and the situation regarding the registration of overseas NGOs.

I will start from the legal system. The first year after the law was passed was a preliminary phase, in the second year some trends became apparent, and in the third year it became possible to make out some clear patterns. Let’s compare the situation over the last three years, and see what changes emerge.

After the Overseas NGO Law was made public on the 28th of April 2016, a series of related documents was released: on the 28th of November 2016, the MPS followed up with the “Guidelines for Registering a Representative Office and Filing to Conduct Temporary Activities for Overseas NGOs”, and then on the 20th of December they published the “List of Fields of Activity, Categories of Projects and Professional Supervisory Units for Overseas NGOs Carrying Out Activities in Mainland China (2017)”; on the 1st of January 2017, the Overseas NGO Law was officially implemented; on the 9th of January 2017, the MPS published the “Online Registration Handbook (version 1.0)” and the “Filing Temporary Activities Online Handbook (Version 1.0)”; on the 19th of January 2017, the State Administration of Taxation released the “Notice on Carrying out the Work on Tax Registrations”; on the 16th of March, the PSB released the contact information for a further 43 PSUs; in May 2017, the People’s Bank of China and the MPS jointly released the “Notice on Work Related to the Management of RMB Bank Accounts”; in August 2017, the State Administration of Foreign Experts Affairs and the MPS jointly released the “Notice on Handling the Work Permits of Foreign Employees of Overseas NGOs“. Finally in March this year the PSB released the “List of Fields of Activity, Categories of Projects and Professional Supervisory Units (PSUs) for Overseas NGOs Carrying out Activities in Mainland China”, updated for 2019.

By now it seems that the related documents from the MPS and the main other relevant bodies have already been completed, and in the next few years there won’t be any more formal documents published, although there might still be new regional rules.

The only recent update was the release of the updated list of fields of activity and PSUs for 2019, which has both additions and removals. For instance, the Chinese People’s Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries was added to the list in 2019. Out of the PSUs, the National Forestry and Grassland Administration published a special set of rules for cooperation and communication with Overseas NGOs in 2017.

Now that we have reached the three year mark, let’s take a look at the official service platform for Overseas NGOs (http://ngo.mps.gov.cn). Three years ago, at the end of January 2017, out of 32 provincial-level work service offices, 18 had a website, and 14 had no link. By the end of July 2017, only 4 had no link.

In November this year, I found out an interesting phenomenon: 15 offices had broken links, while 10 of them had websites.

Looking at the local management offices for overseas NGOs, Guangdong is certainly the one with the most updated material. Not only did they update their own lists following the national ones, but they also publicised their own procedures and rules, for instance with a notice on procedures and a guide on registrations and filings translated into English, a list with the contact information of part of the PSUs, a list of fields of activity and a directory of PSUs for Guangdong, a sample for a cooperation agreement between a Chinese partner and an overseas NGO, and a notice on filing temporary activities for ONGOs. A lot of improvements have thus been made in the procedures.

Secondly, let’s turn to the registration of offices and the filing of temporary activities by overseas NGOs.

 

WechatIMG844

 

WechatIMG851
Looking at these two graphs, what we can see is that the total number of registrations of representative offices has increased very slowly, while the total number of filings of temporary activities has seen a fast upswing. In fact, the number of registrations has halved with every passing year. Of course, this doesn’t mean that it will continue to lessen, because most of the NGOs that were going to register did so in the first year, while over the second and third years numbers dropped to what will probably be the normal level in the future.

WechatIMG864Let’s look at a few further points.

First of all, the places of registration: by the end of 2017, Beijing registered 106 offices, Shanghai 71, Yunnan 22, Guangdong 15, Liaoning 13 and Sichuan 12. These six places took up 78% of total registrations.

By the end of 2018, Beijing, Shanghai, Yunnan, Guangdong and Sichuan took up 71%. In 2019, 66 new offices have been added so far in 18 provinces, with 13 in Beijing, 12 in Shanghai and 9 in Guangdong.

By the end of 2017, there were six places with no registrations: Hebei, Xinjiang, Ningxia, Hainan, Shanxi and Xinjiang Bingtuan. By the end of 2018, only Ningxia, Shanxi, Xinjiang and Xinjiang Bingtuan still had no registrations. By October 2019, it was still the same.

Secondly, let’s look at the PSUs; by the end of 2017, the Shanghai Commission of Commerce had 32 ONGOs under its supervision, the MCA had 11, and the Chinese People’s Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries had 7.

By the end of 2018, the Shanghai Commission of Commerce had 74 ONGOs under its supervision, the Beijing Commission of Commerce had 36, the Liaoning Commission of Commerce had 15, and the Chinese People’s Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries had 14.

Out of the 46 new ONGOs to register in 2019, the Shanghai Commission of Commerce took charge of 7, the Guangdong Department of Commerce 4, and the Guangdong Department of Education 4.

Let’s also look at the permitted scope of work; in 2017, about a third of offices could work nationally, a third in multiple provinces, and a third in a single province; in 2018, it was the same; in 2019, out of the 66 new offices, 25 had a national scope of activity, 11 had a cross-provincial scope, and 30 were limited to a single province.

From these figures we can see some of the patterns and trends from the last three years. First of all, the registration of representative offices has been gradually slowing down and stabilizing. The filing of temporary activities has also evened out and remained at the same level. The places with the most registrations are Beijing, Shanghai, Guangdong, while the places with no registrations are still the same; The places with the most temporary activities are Guangdong, Beijing, Yunnan, Guizhou and Zhejiang. In terms of the field of work and PSU, trade definitely takes the lead. In terms of the location of work, activities limited to a single province are the majority, followed by national and cross-province activities.

The trends we can observe in the first year of implementation prove three points. The first point is the “initial effect”. The first year is a baseline from which you can predict the law’s future implementation. Essentially, the way in which things were carried out in the beginning in a certain field reflects what happened later. The initial attitude taken by PSUs or organs dealing with registration basically determined their future path.

The second point is minority contribution; a minority of localities, PSUs and departments have undertaken the great majority of ONGOs’ registrations and temporary activities.

The third point is special cases. The trends we have just seen are not applicable to special cases, which can always occur due to various factors.

 

Achievements and challenges since the Overseas NGO Law was passed

 

Achievements

When it comes to the achievements of overseas NGOs in China, there has been a big change in terms of numbers, since in the previous 30 years there were only 20 (registered) overseas NGOs, but over the three years since the law’s implementation this figure has risen to 500. There has also been a big change in terms of legal recognition, and after the law was passed overseas NGOs in China became very dynamic. Which areas are the most dynamic?

The first area is trade associations; all over the country, they are particularly active.

Secondly, there are differences according to the location: Beijing, Shanghai, Guangdong, Yunnan are particularly lively in this area, and of course there are a few other places, like Guizhou and Liaoning, that can be considered moderately lively. There are always factors of politics, economy, history and international status behind these regional differences.

Thirdly, there are differences according to the PSU: local commissions of commerce are the most active and open, and the Shanghai Commission of Commerce acts as supervisor to the largest number of NGOs; while organizations registered under the Chinese People’s Associations for Friendship with Foreign Countries all have deep historical roots and contributions to China. The Forestry Bureau, on the other hand, is the only organ that published open rules of cooperation as a PSU, and built up an internal procedure.

Fourthly, there is a difference between registering an office and conducting temporary activities. The filing of temporary activities is becoming the norm everywhere. For organizations that haven’t registered an office, filing a temporary activity is a simpler path, so it is becoming a routine mode of operation.

Finally, when it comes to PSUs there is still a lot of space for the development of individual cases.

 

Challenges

For ONGOs, the big challenge in the first year of the law’s implementation was finding a PSU and registering. In the second and third year the situation has remained stable; by this stage most overseas NGOs in China had already achieved a legal status, and looking for a PSU was no longer the main issue. The biggest challenge in the current period is the operational costs. After achieving legal status it’s necessary to do a lot of talking and negotiating, and this imposes a cost in terms of time, human resources, energy and funds.

This cost is perhaps the most common and obvious problem. It is connected with the issue of how to manage things in a streamlined fashion, and how to conduct operations in an independent and legal fashion. This cost is not only connected with financial resources, but also with human resources, as it will affect the staff’s drive and motivation. Some very professional and high-level management staff have started to change jobs or resign, with some of them completely abandoning the sector.

Secondly, when it comes to the registration and management authorities, cooperation with the PSUs remain the core work, including communicating before registration, apportioning responsibility after registration, and jointly accomplishing the functions of management, law enforcement and providing legality. As an example after registering a lot of organizations find they still can’t carry out their activities in the relevant areas, for instance across provinces or in other administrative regions.

There are also the issues of fundraising and membership. Although fundraising isn’t allowed within China, what about accepting donations? And what about international donations? How about local organizations fundraising abroad? Then there’s the issue of developing a membership and of “localization”, which will produce a series of problems. Those ONGOs that haven’t completed their registration still have the chance to do so, but after registering they will still face these common challenges.

 

The development of overseas NGOs under the “new era” and the “new normal”

 

Looking at the patterns from the last three years, what is the future for overseas NGOs? I will use two terms to summarize the development of overseas NGOs from the perspective of international and local organizations.

The first term is the “new era” in politics. The era of Reform and Opening Up, of “crossing the river by feeling the stones”, lasted 30 years. Now we have entered a new era with the main characteristics of systematic, law-based governance. There is a rigidity to the system, and a flexibility to the society. So in this more systematised era, where is the space for action? How can social flexibility be understood? This is perhaps the most important thing that ONGOs have to consider when drawing up their strategy.

The second term is the “new normal” in economics. China’s sustained high-speed economic growth is unlikely to continue at present, and with the slowdown there will come a downward pressure that will bring a series of challenges, constituting a “new normal”. The political changes compared to the previous era, and the economic challenges that will continue to be faced in the future constitute the new environment of social development which ONGOs have to account for when positioning themselves.

 

Cooperation and Progress

China is in the process of moving towards systemic and law-based governance. In the current very challenging economic situation, what should the strategic positioning of overseas NGOs in China be? What does their role mean for China, and for our Reform and Opening Up?

In this new strategic positioning, there are a few relationships with partners that may become particularly important for ONGOs.

The first is local Chinese social organizations; the aim of some overseas NGOs is to allow local social organizations to develop as much as possible. So what is the situation for Chinese social organizations themselves? Have they developed a new assessment of their role in this respect, or is their relationship with overseas NGOs stuck in the past?

The second is grassroots organizations; ONGOs need to discuss how to build a relationship with grassroots organizations.

The third is interaction with the government; this involves not only the interaction between the ONGO’s representative office and the managing departments, but also the whole government strategy and the internal and external interactions of the ONGO and its headquarters. The mutual dependence between these three players has to realize the intentions of each one. For overseas NGOs a lot of strategizing and skill is involved in balancing these relationships.

The fourth is the relationship between overseas NGOs; including some organizations that haven’t registered; could there be a platform for cooperation and donations, including attempts to localize interactions?

The fifth is the special position of organizations from Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. About a fourth of the ONGOs are from these three places, and they have a special position. There are many ONGOs that are registered in Hong Kong, and want to use it as an intermediary to conduct work in the Mainland. Perhaps there needs to be a rethink towards the efficacy of this path.

In summary, I feel that it was very fitting for CDB to make “cooperation and common progress” the theme of this year’s forum. After three years, it can be said that the implementation of the Overseas NGO law has come close to a stable situation.

In the future, apart from the need to continue improving the way in which the law is implemented, what is more important is for Overseas NGOs to rethink their approach and how to position themselves within China’s overall strategy in the new political and economic situation.

 

Translation by Gabriel Corsetti

【简报论坛】贾西津: 境外非政府组织管理法实施三年来的成就与挑战

来源:发展简报  作者:贾西津

 

 

CDB Forum 2019

Cooperation and Progress for Overseas NGOs

 

 

 

作者简介:清华大学副教授贾西津

 

 

编者按 【简报论坛:2019国际NGO合作与共进研讨会】于11月11日在北京如期拉开序幕!本次研讨会邀请业界权威专家,共同探讨国际NGO在新环境下宏观、微观层面运作发展的生态环境,内容涵盖国际NGO的合规运营、社会需求及NGO自身项目定位,以及人力资源和注册备案等话题。从本期开始,发展简报将陆续发布研讨会嘉宾的现场分享,详细还原研讨会核心要素及重点解读。本期演讲嘉宾为清华大学副教授贾西津女士,她演讲的主题是《境外非政府组织管理法实施三年来的成就与挑战》。

 

01 嘉宾主题演讲

 

 

《境外非政府组织境内活动管理法》 实施三年回顾 众所周知,《境外非政府组织境内活动管理法》实施已经三年,借此机会,我首先从两方面做一个总结回顾:一个从法律制度层面,一个从登记情况角度。

 

 

第一、法律制度层面:

 

 

法律颁布第一年是初始年,第二年能看到一些趋势;第三年应该能总结出一些规律。我们把前三年列在一起做一个比较,看看会呈现什么变化。

 

 

自2016年4月28日《中华人民共和国境外非政府组织境内活动管理法》公布起 , 11月28日 公安部紧接着发布《登记和临时活动备案办事指南》, 同年12月20日公安部发布《活动领域和项目目录、业务主管单位名录(2017)》。2017年1月1日《境外非政府组织境内活动管理法》正式实施 , 1月9日公安部发布了《设立登记网上操作手册(V 1.0)&临时活动备案网上操作手册(V 1.0)》; 1月19日国家税务总局发布《税务登记办理有关工作的通知》;3月16日公安部又公布了有关业务主管单位联系方式43家;5月 中国人民银行、公安部联合发布了《人民币账户管理有关工作的通知》;8月,国家外国专家局、公安部联合发布《外籍工作人员工作许可》等通知。直到2019年3 月,公安部公布活动领域和项目目录、业务主管单位名录(2019)。到目前为止,公安部门和几个最重要相关部门的文件都已经完善,最近几年几乎没有新的正式文件再颁布,不排除地方上有新的相关规定。

 

 

唯一的更新,就是2019年和活动领域相结合的业务主管单位名录更新,看得出这个名录有增有减。非常有代表性的增补机构,比如友协,新版目录当中2019年加入。在业务主管单位方面,公开颁布的是林业部在2017年,专门对境外非政府组织合作交流颁布的一个规定。

 

 

在三年的这个时间节点上,再回顾一下境外非政府组织办事服务平台http://ngo.mps.gov.cn 三年前,至2017年1月底,32个办事服务大厅链接,有网页18家,未链接14家;截至7月底,未链接4家。2019年11月发现一些很有意思的现象,失链15个,链接入境外办网页10个。

 

 

从地方境外非政府组织管理办公室而言,广东更新东西最多,不仅跟着国家更新相关目录,而且还有自己的流程、规则,比如像流程告知书,登记和临时活动备案办事指南及英译文本,部分业务主管单位信息,在粤活动领域和项目目录及业务主管单位名录(2019年),中方合作单位与境外非政府组织合作协议参考模版,境外非政府组织代表机构设立后相关事项告知书,境外非政府组织临时活动备案告知书等在流程上做了很多改进。 第二、登记备案层面:

 

 

 

 

这里有两个图,我们能看到登记的总量在这三年是非常缓慢的上升,备案的量是高频的上升。这张图还能看出业务登记机构,登记的数量按月呈现的变化,从年度线,看到登记数量逐年减半。当然这个并不意味着越来越少,因为第一年大部分已经被登记,第二年、第三年几乎持平,也许这种趋势以后很可能会成为一个常态。

 

 

 

 

 

从登记备案角度,分别有几个特点:

 

 

首先是登记地;2017年底北京106,上海71,云南22,广东15,辽宁13,四川12。六地占78%。2018年底北京、上海、云南、广东、四川,合计71% 。2019年新增66家18省,其中北京13,上海12,广东9。

 

 

2017年底零登记6地,河北、新疆,宁夏,海南、山西、新疆兵团。  2018年底仍有宁夏、山西、新疆、新疆兵团4家零登记, 2019年10月同2018年一样。

 

 

其次,业务主管单位;2017年底上海市商委32家,民政部11家,中国人民对外友好协会7家。2018年分别是上海市商委74,北京市商委36,辽宁省商委15,中国人民对外友好协会14。2019年新登记46家业务主管单位,其中上海市商委7,广东省商务厅4、广东省教育厅4。

 

 

另外, 活动区域;2017年全国/多省/单省=~1/3 : 1/3 : 1/3 ,2018年没有变化。2019年新增66家,全国25,多省11,单省30。

 

 

从这组数字中,可以看到三年中的一些规律和趋势。首先代表机构的登记渐缓,趋势趋稳。临时活动备案趋平、常态化。登记活跃地始终是北京、上海、广东,零登记地保持不变,备案活跃地是广东、北京、云南、贵州、浙江。业务领域和主管单位商委绝对主导,活动地域从单省、全国、到多省 。

 

 

这些趋势根据第一年的观察判断,可以证实三点:第一点是初始效应。第一年是起点,也就是从第一年可以看到整个法律的执行状况。从趋势上面看,初始的领域,就是其后的领域特点。在法律颁布之初,单位不管是业务主管还是登记管理机关,对法律的态度几乎决定了后面的路径。

 

 

第二点是少数贡献。这一现象显示少数地方、少数业务主管单位、少数部门承担了绝大多数的境外NGO注册与临时活动备案。这种现象类似二八定律中20%的顶端的人拥有80%的收入。

 

 

第三点是个案。刚才看到的趋势不适用于个案,个案是什么情况都有发生,个案有特殊因素,当一些特殊因素或某种因缘聚集的时候个案会发生。

 

 

《境外非政府组织境内活动管理法》 实施以来的成就与挑战

 

1、成就: 关于境外组织在境内的发展成就,从数量上就有很大变化,原来30年只有20多家,《境外非政府组织境内活动管理法》实施三年后变成500多家。在合法性上也有很大变化,在法律实施后,整个境外非政府组织在华变得非常活跃。在哪些地方比较活跃?

 

 

第一区分领域是商协会。在各地区都是商、协会相对活跃。

 

 

第二区分维度是地域。就是北京、上海、广东、云南比较活跃,当然也有贵州、辽宁等等属于中度活跃,每一个活跃地点都是有政治、国际地位、经济、历史等方面的原因。

 

 

第三是业务主管单位。各地商委是最活跃最开放的,上海商委登记的最多;除了商委之外,友协登记的组织,从多样性方面,每一家都具有深厚的历史渊源和中国贡献。另外,林业局是唯一从业务主管单位公开发布合作规则,并建立内部流程的机构。

 

 

第四是登记和备案情况。临时活动登记和备案在各地会趋于常态化,没有登记的机构,备案相对门槛会较低,成为一个更常规的运作。

 

 

第五是业务主管单位仍然有很多个案的发展。

 

 

2、挑战:

 

首先,对于境外NGO而言,法律实施第一年面临的挑战主要是如何找到业务主管单位并完成注册。第二年和第三年面临的挑战变化不太大,这个时期大部分境外NGO已经持续获得合法地位,业务主管单位的寻找已不是主要问题,这个时期最大的挑战主要集中在运作成本上。运作成本激增可能是一个普遍的、最突出的问题。在完成注册之后需要与业务主管单位和注册管理机关进行大量的沟通,会涉及到时间、人力、精力、资金的成本。涉及到如何流程化的管理,如何用自主性或者法制性的方式来运作等沟通。由于成本不仅和资金有关,还会直接和人才相关联,关键是影响到人才的激励。有些很专业的高级管理人员开始流动、流失,有的甚至不再从事这方面工作。

 

 

其次,从登记管理机关角度讲,与业务主管单位的互动仍然是核心工作。包括登记前的沟通,登记之后的责任分担,以及如何共同完成管理职能、执法职能、合法性的协调等问题。比如在注册以后,有的境外NGO仍然不能在相关地区开展活动,比如不能跨省或者在国内别的行政区域开展工作。

 

 

另外,还有募捐问题、会员问题等。国内募捐虽然不可以,但可不可以接受捐赠?国际捐赠可不可以?国内的机构在国外募捐可不可以?还有会员发展的问题,以及“本土化”的问题,会产生一系列相关联的问题。

 

 

对没有完成注册的境外NGO来说,未来获得注册的可能还是有的,但注册后仍会面临这些普遍性的挑战。

 

 

“新时代”“新常态”下的境外非政府组织发展

 

 

 

根据前三年的规律,非政府组织的未来是什么?我用两个词从国外非政府组织和国内非政府组织两方面,概括一下非常态下的境外NGO的未来发展。

 

 

第一、政治“新时代”。前30年是改革开放摸着石头过河的时代,现在进入一个新的时代。这个时代是以法制化、制度化为特点的,有一种制度的刚性在,也有社会的弹性在。所以在这样一个更制度化的时代中,它的空间在哪里?社会的弹性如何理解?这可能是境外NGO做战略定位中最重要的考量。

 

 

第二、经济“新常态”。中国持续高速的经济增长目前已经不太可能继续,经济增长放缓,下行压力以及相关联带来的一系列挑战,会成为一种新的“常态”。政治上与前一个时代相比的变化特征,和经济上在未来相当时间内将持续面临的挑战,构成社会发展的新环境,也是境外NGO要去为自己定位的新环境。 合作与共进

 

 

中国在更加制度化、法制化的进程中,在经济将处于更大挑战的形势下,境外非政府组织在中国的战略定位是什么?这样一个角色对中国意味着什么?对我们的改革和开放意味着什么? 在新的战略定位中,境外NGO可能需要处理几类最重要的合作伙伴关系。

 

 

一是中国本土社会组织:有些境外NGO合作的目标是让中国社会组织有更大发展。那么,中国社会组织自身的状况如何?它对境外NGO来说是停留在原来的关系,还是有一种新的角色定位?

 

 

二是草根组织:境外NGO需要探讨怎样建立与中国草根组织之间的发展关系。

 

 

三是与政府之间的互动:这种互动不仅是在境外NGO驻华代表处和政府管理部门之间,而是要处理好整个政府战略和境外NGO驻华代表处及其国际总部之间的内外关系。这三者之间相互依赖又要实现各自意图。对境外NGO而言,怎么平衡这种关系?这其中有很多战术和战略问题需要考虑。

 

 

四是境外NGO之间的关系:包括一些没有登记的组织,会不会有合作捐赠的平台,包括本土化尝试交流与互动。

 

 

五是港澳台NGO的特殊定位。境外NGO中大概有四分之一属于在港澳台登记的NGO。其实在大陆和香港之间,港澳台也有很特殊的定位。有一大部分境外NGO在香港登记,试图在大陆组织活动,试图借助港澳台,特别是以香港作为一个中转。目前对于这样一个路径,可能整体上要重新反思。这个路径现在还有没有效?如果有效的话,这是一种什么作用?是否需要在双向定位上重新思考?

 

 

总体上, 今天简报以“合作与共进”作为今年的主题,我觉得很切合,法律实施三年,可以认为已经接近平稳状态。未来除了进一步有法律实施流程上的改进外,更重要的是,境外NGO需要重新思考自身在中国的战略定位,其中的重要因素是在新的政治经济形势下,如何看中国在其总体战略中的定位。

论坛精彩瞬间回顾

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

简报论坛 . 明年再会!

 

 

 

*免责声明:本站文章图文版权归原作者及原出处所有 ,文章内容为作者个人观点,并不代表本网站。如果您发现网站上有侵犯您的知识产权的作品,请与我们取得联系,我们会及时修改或删除。

Translated by Gabriel Corsetti

No related content found.

Share: