NGOS: SILVER LINING BUT A LOOMING DARK CLOUD

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 MOSCOW 000695 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/15/2017 TAGS: PHUM PGOV PREL KDEM EAID RS SUBJECT: NGOS: SILVER LINING BUT A LOOMING DARK CLOUD REF: MOSCOW 476 Classified By: Ambassador William J. Burns. Reasons 1.4 (b, d). ¶1. (C) SUMMARY: After initial difficulties in getting re-registered, our U.S. and foreign NGO contacts have resumed normal activities and express little concern over the follow-on reporting requirements. The Federal Registration Service (FRS) surprisingly has even expressed interest in working more closely with the NGO community and the Embassy, including in seeking a U.S.-based NGO to serve on a Public Council. The bottom line is that ten months after the NGO law came into effect, it has consumed large amounts of NGOs' time, but has not halted their work. At the same time, many here see it as more evidence that the environment for NGOs is becoming more tightly controlled. They point to the Dutch NGO Russia Justice Initiative, already twice refused registration and under increasing scrutiny, as an example of how selective pressure can be brought to bear under the new law. We will continue to urge GOR officials to reduce the burden on Russia's relatively large and active NGO community. END SUMMARY. SILVER LINING: COMMON SENSE LARGELY PREVAILS -------------- ¶2. (C) Our foreign NGO contacts generally agree that the NGO law has had no major effect on their operations, aside from the time and effort required to submit registration documents and subsequent reports. Now that most foreign NGOs have been re-registered, the concerns many NGOs voiced earlier have eased, but have not completely disappeared. Thus far, NGOs reported far less difficulty in completing required, quarterly follow-on activity and financial reports than in applying for re-registration, although a new round of more comprehensive annual financial and activity reports will be due in April. Human Rights Watch (HRW) Country Director Allison Gill said HRW would minimize details on its work required in the reporting, particularly research trips to Chechnya, but it had no intention of abandoning such activities. Other NGO contacts told us concerns about the reports were tied more to the lack of guidance from the Federal Registration Service (FRS). In the absence of official guidance --expected soon but unlikely to give much more specific instructions -- FRS officials have instructed NGOs to use "common sense" in completing the reports. Ford Foundation Executive Director Steven Solnick submitted Ford's annual program reports in October and told us he has heard nothing from FRS and did not expect to. FRS SEEKS BROADER COOPERATION WITH NGOS -------------- ¶3. (C) Anatoliy Panchenko, deputy head of the FRS Department on Registration of NGOs, told Emboffs recently that FRS had been satisfied with the results of the registration process. As of February 5, FRS had re-registered 200 foreign NGOs, 109 of them based in the U.S. There had been 18 organizations refused, but 10 of them had been approved after resubmitting their applications. FRS conducted technical reviews of the applications, and concerns that the process would be politicized had been shown to be untrue, he noted. ¶4. (C) We asked about reporting requirements, including whether rumors that NGOs would have to keep extremely detailed records of events, were true. Panchenko acknowledged that FRS would be unable to handle the volume of reports from foreign NGOs. His department, which reviewed registration applications, not just for NGOs but for religious organizations and others required to register, had a staff of six. The department monitoring reports had a staff of seven. Panchenko said in most cases, FRS would acknowledge receipt of the report and do nothing else. There may be times that reports would be reviewed if suspicions about a particular NGO arose, he added. ¶5. (C) In fact, FRS wanted to broaden its cooperation with NGOs and other key actors in trying to make the registration process more transparent, Panchenko said. He expressed willingness to have FRS officers participate in seminars explaining reporting requirements. He welcomed questions from the Embassy or NGOs and agreed to consider posting answers on the FRS website. FRS had also been working closely with the Public Chamber and Ella Pamfilova, Chair of the Presidential Commission on Development of Civil Society Institutions and Human Rights. FRS was pursuing formation of a "public council," in conjunction with the Public Chamber, to monitor FRS activities. Panchenko said the council would include one or two members of the Public Chamber and others from the organizations registered by FRS. He suggested that a representative from a foreign NGO -- possibly an American given that American NGOs were the majority -- should serve on MOSCOW 00000695 002 OF 003 the council. Contacts have told us that other FRS officials have been equally enthusiastic about FRS participation in fora with the NGO community. Panchenko has asked the International Center for Non-profit Law to work with FRS in analyzing implementation of the legislation. VISA GLITCH RESOLVED -------------- ¶6. (C) Foreign NGO representatives have reported minor problems with amending bank accounts, tax accounts, and motor vehicle registrations arising from minor name changes required by FRS, such as renaming an organization a branch office rather than a representative office. International Rescue Committee, for example, could not drive its vehicles because local branches of the State Automobile Inspectorate would not consider a copy of the FRS registration certificate as sufficient to amend IRC's vehicle registration. It had to produce a letter from its headquarters noting the name had been changed. ¶7. (C) FRS officials quickly resolved a potential problem connected to visa renewals for expatriate NGO workers. Previously, the Federal Registration Chamber sponsored such visas, but the new legislation did not address that issue. FRS reached agreement with the registration chamber to continue its sponsorship, and our contacts have reported no visa troubles for expatriate staff. AMENDMENTS EXPECTED? -------------- ¶8. (C) Dr. Aleksandr Auzan, the president of the Institute of the National Project "Social Contract," told us that he expected the NGO law would soon be amended, relaxing registration and reporting requirements. Auzan conducted a survey on the economic impact of the requirements on NGOs and the GOR. His research found that the costs of implementation were excessive. Senior officials, including President Putin, recognized that the law was ineffective in meeting stated goals of identifying terrorist organizations. Putin and others also now considered an Orange Revolution extremely unlikely and were far less wary of foreign NGOs, Auzan added. Auzan claimed that shortly before the NGO bill's second reading last year, the Presidential Administration realized there were problems with it. It had planned to amend it and send it back to the Duma, where it would have been "forgotten." Unfortunately, as international criticism grew, including the adoption of a resolution by the House of Representatives, the Kremlin changed its mind. Deputies to Human Rights Ombudsman Lukin and to Commission on Development of Civil Society Institutions and Human Rights Chair Pamfilova have told us they are recommending a second look at the reporting requirements, which they believe impede the efficiency of NGOs (reftel). THE DARK CLOUD -------------- ¶9. (C) Contacts at the twice-refused Dutch NGO Russia Justice Initiative (RJI) are increasingly suspicious of FRS's motives. FRS refused RJI in part because it was registered as a representative office, not a branch office. FRS maintains its should be a branch office because it conducts programs. (FRS has made a similar ruling in the cases of two other NGOs in considering their applications.) RJI's attorney told us, however, that each time RJI submitted its application, FRS found new reasons not to register it. RJI and Human Rights Watch had filed identical applications, the attorney said, and HRW was registered with little trouble while RJI was rejected. ¶10. (C) Additionally, RJI's affiliate in Ingushetiya, which is registered as a Russian NGO, has been notified that the Ministry of Justice will be inspecting the office to ensure that its activities are in accordance with its charter. RJI's attorney told us that its biggest concern was not that the office would be found out of compliance, but that government officials could get access to files containing names and addresses of victims of abuses who intended to file complaints to the European Court of Human Rights, putting them at risk of retaliation. Other Russian NGO representatives have told us that incidences of such document checks have increased recently. Panchenko told us that FRS has asked tax authorities to close down NGOs that have continued operating without applying for registration. OTHER LEVERS -------------- ¶11. (C) RJI is the only case we know of where MOSCOW 00000695 003 OF 003 re-registration problems may be attributable to more than GOR bureaucratic inefficiency. Russian NGO contacts have also noted difficulties experienced by a gay rights NGO in Tyumen that has not been registered. Our contacts emphasize that the GOR has shown it can use other levers in dealing with NGOs, such as accusations of extremism in the liquidation of the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society, tax audits of Memorial and other organizations or, in the cases of some foreign NGOs, restrictions on where they can work or denial of visas to expatriate staff. In most cases, such tactics have been used to harass organizations and limit their effectiveness, rather than shut them down. At the cost of considerable time, effort, and money, NGOs have managed to continue working. Memorial has thus far been able to defeat tax claims in court, according to contacts there. International Rescue Committee is currently prohibited from working in North Ossetia by local officials sensitive to any activity in the disputed Prigorodniy region, but continues to work in Ingushetiya and Chechnya. The Russian-Chechen Friendship Society has reconstituted itself by registering two new organizations. COMMENT -------------- ¶12. (C) We have not seen signs that NGOs are modifying their behavior because of the law. Thousands of NGOs continue to press forward on their independent agendas and contribute to Russia's developing civil society. Clearly, however, the registration law has contributed to a climate of greater GOR control and provides another lever to selectively target both foreign and local NGOs. Many NGOs are concerned about being subjected to further scrutiny. We will continue to urge the GOR to provide maximum transparency and clarity in implementing the law, supporting those GOR officials who seek further amendments to reduce the law's reporting burdens. BURNS