IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NGO LAW: SO FAR, MUCH

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 MOSCOW 005372 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/05/2016 TAGS: PROG PREL PINR RS SUBJECT: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NGO LAW: SO FAR, MUCH UNCERTAINTY REF: MOSCOW 2132 Classified By: Ambassador William J. Burns. Reasons: 1.4 (B/D). ¶1. (C) SUMMARY: In the month since Russia's controversial new NGO legislation formally went into effect, there has been widespread uncertainty about how to comply with it and about its long-term impact. Though implementing regulations have been issued, they fail to address many practical questions. The Justice Ministry reportedly is preparing explanatory notes, and some Federal Registration Service (FRS) officials indicate they are open to meeting with NGOs to discuss compliance. Some major U.S.-based NGOs see reason for hope that the law will not adversely affect them. Many independent Russian NGO activists are less sanguine, fearing the law's massive bureaucratic requirements and the GOR's ability to apply them selectively. Kremlin officials have told the Ambassador that no major drive is in the works to shut down independent NGOs; he has reiterated to them our concerns about implementation and urged maximum transparency and minimum impact on NGO activities. While the law remains highly worrisome, it is not clear that a worst-case scenario will play out. We will continue to underscore -- ideally, in unison with other governments -- our concern for fair and transparent application of the law, and will need to avoid having a counterproductive "Made in the U.S.A." stamp attached to efforts to monitor implementation. END SUMMARY. . UNCERTAINTY ABOUNDS -------------- ¶2. (C) The controversial amendments to NGO legislation (reftel and previous) formally went into effect on April 18, and the period since then has been dominated by uncertainty and confusion. The Justice Ministry has issued implementing regulations along with almost one hundred pages of forms for NGOs to complete for various aspects of compliance. Meanwhile, the FRS has begun hiring new staff to carry out the law. AmCham deputy director for policy Tatyana Raguzina told the Ambassador, in a May 15 meeting with major U.S.-based NGOs working in Russia, that the deputy director of the FRS office in charge of NGOs had told her the previous day that his agency had hired some one thousand new employees, although he gave no reason to believe that hiring would continue to proceed apace. (By many accounts, the FRS aims to hire a total of six thousand new employees to implement the law.) That official also told Raguzina that training had begun for regional FRS officials. If the official voiced optimism about his agency's workplan, he also acknowledged that his office was still ill-prepared to begin the task of implementing the NGO law, telling her that, in the tiny office he currently shares with a skeleton staff, he was likely to be overwhelmed by paperwork for the foreseeable future. ¶3. (C) Although the implementing regulations are extensive, they fail to address many practical questions about compliance. At the May 15 meeting with the Ambassador, for instance, NDI country director Mary O'Hagan said she was uncertain what constituted a "reportable" meeting or event under the terms of the law. Many activists have told us they are uncertain what level of detail they will have to provide to comply with the law. American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (JDC) country director Sam Amiel, for instance, told us that while his organization had not been directly affected by the new law, many of the NGOs that receive JDC funding are confused about how to proceed, which is weakening their effectiveness. In earlier meetings, activists had told us they were stymied in their attempts to get responses to their questions about the law from what they described as a disorganized FRS, although some are now getting some information. According to Raguzina, her FRS interlocutor said he would be happy to meet with AmCham members to explain procedures, and such a meeting has been tentatively set for next week. ¶4. (C) Public Chamber member Sergey Ryakhovskiy, who tracks the NGO law, is among several people who have told us recently that the Justice Ministry is now preparing explanatory notes to supplement the implementing regulations. At the May 15 meeting with the Ambassador, Moscow Carnegie Center Director Rose Goettemoeller speculated that the GOR was slow to complete those notes because of infighting over bureaucratic turf. Goettemoeller said she was concerned that NGOs could be caught in the cross-fire of such infighting, which she believed had also led to delays in producing the implementing regulations. ¶5. (C) Aside from specific issues of compliance, broader questions persist. At the meeting with the Ambassador, for instance, Raguzina said she believed that registering with MOSCOW 00005372 002 OF 004 the FRS would be sufficient to meet all NGO registration requirements, whereas Ford Foundation country director Steve Solnick argued that registering with tax authorities and others was still required. Similar questions continue to swirl throughout the NGO community as lawyers and activists work their way through the law and implementing regulations and seek clarification from the FRS. . DIFFERING EXPECTATIONS -------------- ¶6. (C) Some Western NGOs see reason to hope that the law will not adversely affect them. At the meeting with the Ambassador, Solnick said that, at least for large and well-staffed organizations like his, the law might not prove damaging. Well before the new legislation went into effect, Ford had been dealing with major bureaucratic burdens, and its accountants felt the new requirements were manageable. Solnick also believed that because the FRS would be overwhelmed with paperwork, it would be less prone to go after organizations like his. Nonetheless, he acknowledged that the law created potential new threats. Although Raguzina said she had been assured by FRS officials that it would not punish NGOs that erred in completing some of the newly required forms, AmCham Executive Director Andrew Somers noted that an organization could be shut down under the law for twice submitting incorrectly completed documentation. ¶7. (C) Meanwhile, the implementing regulations have reinforced concerns that many independent Russian NGOs have long been voicing. Some activists, including Yuriy Dzhibladze of the Center for the Development of Democracy and Human Rights, have told us they had been able to influence the drafting process to eliminate some of the most damaging regulations. Nonetheless, the sheer number of forms to be completed and the level of detail that appears to be required constitute a major source of alarm. Civil society activists such as Open Russia's Irina Yasina have told us that even sizable organizations like hers will need to hire new staff to meet the reporting requirements. Smaller organizations, including those in the regions, may lack the funds to add new staff members, forcing them to find creative solutions, self-censor or risk closure. Michael Harvey of ACDI/VOCA echoed that theme, noting that some of the forms appear to require completion in ink or on a typewriter, rather than by computer, further increasing the burden. Yelena Topoleva of the Agency for Social Information told us the forms were prepared without consulting with the NGO community or with Chair of the Presidential Commission for Assistance to the Development of Institutions of Civil Society and Human Rights Ella Pamfilova. ¶8. (C) Resource implications aside, the law creates vulnerabilities by requiring a high level of detail in its reporting requirements, the activists tell us. The FRS could use even a minor reporting error to punish an organization, they argue, along the lines of the GOR's use of minor reporting errors to disqualify some political parties from running in the March regional elections . . GEARING UP TO RESPOND -------------- ¶9. (C) NGOs have begun to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements, although many have told us they recognize that the FRS could find technical reasons to punish even an NGO that is being meticulous in meeting its reporting requirements. They also note that the courts might well uphold arbitrary FRS decisions. In that connection, however, some are encouraged by recent victories of independent NGOs. Most recently, NDI scored an almost total victory in a case brought by tax authorities, which had charged that NDI had not paid its taxes properly. NDI's position was upheld after it showed evidence countering the tax authorities' claim, and it must pay only a small fine for non-payment of a minor part of its tax obligations. ¶10. (C) Recognizing that fulfilling their reporting requirements will reduce their vulnerability, NGOs have begun beefing up their capacities. Some are hiring additional accountants, sometimes exploring the possibility of sharing staff among two or more organizations to cut down on costs. USAID is funding several coalitions of NGOs -- including U.S. groups like the International Center for Non-Profit Law (ICNL),as well as Russian NGOs such as the Center for Democracy and the Institute for Urban Economics (IUE) -- to help identify the specific burdens and threats these new regulations pose to NGOs and to coordinate and expand pro bono legal aid and other efforts. ¶11. (C) Some organizations have found that the law creates MOSCOW 00005372 003 OF 004 new obstacles to receiving direct funding from foreign governments. In response, USAID is developing arrangements, for instance, to channel funds to Internews Russia through Internews Network (US) rather than directly. Internews Russia will then work for the Network on a commercial consulting basis, rather than as a non-profit grantee. Our contacts at the UK embassy told us they are working on similar arrangements for their grantees with Internews and some others. Internews Russia is among several organizations that may "go corporate" because of the new law. IUE head Marina Liborakina recently told us her organization has also begun considering that option. ¶12. (C) Meanwhile, some Western organizations have stopped plans to register in Russia, preferring to provide funding to Russian organizations. Leonid Stonov of the Union of Councils of Jewry of the Former Soviet Union (UCSJ) told us his organization had considered opening an office to oversee implementation of a major project to monitor and counter extremism, but has now decided to avoid the registration process, opting instead to channel funding directly to the Moscow Helsinki Group to implement that project. ¶13. (C) Some activists have begun planning legal challenges to elements of the law which they believe to be unconstitutional. Boris Pustyntsev, head of the St. Petersburg-based Citizens Watch NGO, told us he is part of an effort to prepare such challenges, which will either be filed initially in lower courts or be taken directly to the Constitutional Court if possible. Pustyntsev saw little prospect of winning such cases in Russia but saw the move as preparing the ground for bringing the cases to the European Court of Human Rights. ¶14. (C) Various organizations have pledged to monitor the law's implementation. Among those is the Public Chamber, whose head, Yevgeniy Velikhov, told us May 15 that this would be a major focus of the recently formed body's work. Several Chamber members have sought to take up the mantle. Igor Chestin, a Chamber member from the World Wildlife Fund, recently told the Ambassador that he, along with several other independent-minded members, is on a working group monitoring implementation. Grigoriy Tomchin, a Chamber member with a solid reputation for drafting legislation during his time in the Duma, told us he is poised to draft amendments to the law or to the implementing regulations. Tomchin added, however, that it is far too early to draw any conclusions about implementation. Vyacheslav Nikonov, Chairman of the Chamber's Commission on International Cooperation and Public Diplomacy, told us he had intended to hold hearings this month with domestic and foreign NGOs on the law's implementation, but had concluded that it would not be possible to get a useful overview of implementation problems before September, when the hearings are now scheduled. ¶15. (C) In addition to our own tracking of the NGO law's implementation, other embassies have begun working on that effort. A Danish Embassy officer told us that after some internal disagreement among EU member embassies, the EU has established a working group to monitor implementation. . REITERATING OUR CONCERNS -------------- ¶16. (C) The Ambassador has continued to reiterate to Kremlin officials our concerns with implementation. He highlighted that point to G8 Sherpa Igor Shuvalov, noting the damaging effects that abuse of the NGO law could have on the St. Petersburg Summit. Shuvalov acknowledged the point and said it is unlikely the Kremlin will initiate a sweeping attack on NGOs either before or after the Summit. The Ambassador also reiterated our concerns to Presidential Aide Sergey Prikhodko, who said he did not see the Kremlin using the law to make a broad assault on independent NGOs. We also suggested to Nikonov that it would be helpful if at least some of the prominent domestic and foreign NGOs were registered successfully before the G8 Summit. Nikonov took the point, but said he thought those working on domestic issues in the Presidential Administration were not inclined to "do favors" for the West, which would pocket such steps and continue criticizing Russia with no acknowledgment of the positive moves. ¶17. (C) The Ambassador has also highlighted our support for independent NGOs, most recently by speaking at the thirtieth anniversary of the Moscow Helsinki Group. We have also underscored that foreign assistance has benefited Russia in concrete ways. The Ambassador held a reception for Junior Achievement Russia, which gets USG support, to make the latter point, which was echoed at the event by Public Chamber MOSCOW 00005372 004 OF 004 head Velikhov. The Ambassador will make that same point in a keynote address at a conference, jointly sponsored by the Moscow Carnegie Center and the Gorbachev Fund, that will center on the importance of Western cooperation with Russia. . COMMENT -------------- ¶18. (C) There is no question that the new law, its implementing regulations and above all its extensive and detailed reporting requirements, give grounds for concern. The law includes some vague provisions that leave room for arbitrary application. The lack of clarity about implementation likely results at least in part from the GOR's own confusion about exactly how to apply the law, but that also creates vulnerabilities by making it harder for NGOs to properly comply with the legislation. Similarly, the extensive reporting requirements, though no doubt partly a result of Russia's cultural penchant for highly bureaucratic procedures, create both logistical difficulties and vulnerabilities for NGOs. However the law ends up being implemented, these vulnerabilities are likely to foster greater self-censorship and dissuade at least some NGOs from working with foreign organizations and receiving foreign funding. ¶19. (C) Nonetheless, we should not assume that a worst-case scenario will play out either before or after the G8 Summit. Significant elements of the NGO community are in good faith preparing for the new challenges, above all by strengthening their capabilities to fulfill the law's requirements. We are lending a hand in that effort, although it is important for Russians to be seen taking the lead so that a "Made in the USA" stamp is not attached to independent civil society. We will continue reiterating our concerns, as well as demonstrating our support for independent NGOs and highlighting the benefits to Russia of Western cooperation and assistance, to the degree possible doing so in conjunction with other governments. BURNS