About two and a half years ago the amendments came into effect in the legislation about NGOs. Then representatives from the home and foreign NGOs, authoritative international organizations and even Russian Public Chamber warned against harmfulness of the novations, but none of them were heard. Now Novaya Gazeta is about to make conclusions about the effect of the new NGO legislation.   

“Dura lex sed lex” said Romans (the law is severe, but this is the law). Russian contemporary laws are far from measured Latin acts, and its severity is compensated with optionality of application, except cases where the law is applied to those who are considered to be “enemies” of the standing authority. Many lances were broken over the NGO bill. The expert opinion is that the law is designed poorly and contradicts not only to some Russian other acts, but also to a number of international conventions and pacts. Even Public Chamber, loyal to the state, has expressed its displeasure saying that the “bill is conceptually inapplicable and does not contain positive novations that should be retained, while the number of disputable provisions is so big that it seems impossible to correct all that.”    

Nevertheless, in December 2005 the bill was approved by the State Duma and three months later it became effective.

The essence of amendments

The novations were as to follow. First, the “qualitative staff” of founders and participants was changed significantly. For example, now an NGO can be created by no foreigner or stateless person, whose staying in Russia is undesirable for the authorities. Any Russian citizen, recognized by the court to be an extremist, cannot found it either.  

Second, changed are grounds for refusal of registration. Now there are even more of them compared to those provided for by the rules effective for commercial organizations. An official might consider, for example, that the name of an NGO is insulting “morality, national or religious feelings by citizens”. Or that the papers submitted were made in the improper order – and the law does not explain what it means. By the way, the head of Federal Registration Service Sergei Vasilyev refused giving us an answer to the question whether misprints in the documents might be a ground for refusal.   

Now it has become practically impossible to register an NGO with the first attempt. Last year over 11,000 NGOs out of more than 227,000 were refused registration. Incidentally, such a refusal means loss of 2,000 rubles of a duty, while the state treasury gets it as a profit. To avoid procrastination, many NGOs fall back on various “specialists”. In Moscow to register an NGO with a “consultant’s help” is 40% more expensive than registration of a commercial organization and it takes twice as long. In the regions the difference may be even worse. 

Third, NGOs must report regularly about the sources of financing (foreign ones above all), while the registering bodies have the right of making enquiries about financial aspects of NGOs with other state bodies (tax inspections, for example) and even with crediting organizations. In short, NGOs must report about themselves everything, including information that is usually considered to be a commercial secret. The above mentioned Sergei Vasilyev stated in his interview to Rossiyskaya Gazeta that this is done so that to provide for transparency. Actually, the state has always been able to watch the money flows, as NGOs were to give accounts to tax authorities. Officials do not make a secret of a fact that the legislation is amended so that to ensure control exactly over financing from abroad. The attitude by Russian authorities towards NGOs has become rather suspicious after “colored” revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine. In the 90’s many NGOs, especially those dealing with human rights issues, were financed mainly from abroad. With the amendments adopted the foreign donors found it more difficult to finance Russian NGOs, as donor funds are NGOs too and they themselves must give an account to registering bodies. Registering bodies have the right to put a ban on financing particular physical or juridical persons by a foreign NGO. And recently the Russian government has reduced the list of international organizations whose grants are to be exempted from tax in Russia – the list was lessened from 101 to 12 organizations. In particular, since January 2008 a tax of 25% must be paid by American funds of Ford and McArthur, International Federation of Red Cross, and Global Fund for struggle with AIDS.            

Fourth, NGOs must give regular accounts of their activities. Foreign organizations are to arrange their plans a year in advance, otherwise a threat to the “Constitutional regime fundamentals, morality, health, rights and lawful interests of other persons, defense and national security might appear.” It is also obligatory to inform the registering bodies about how things are going on and advise in advance of any “significant” changes in one’s activities. No one argues that a certain checking is really necessary, as no one would donate money to a completely unknown organization. However, in theory any NGO may be checked all year round every two months. During regular visits, the registering bodies employees may require even confidential papers, so that to estimate whether all that corresponds to the Constitution, legislature and national interests. Besides, they may visit NGOs at any time, for example, having received a report from some “vigilant” citizen or interested agency.        

26 May Prime Minister Putin stated that small businesses must be eased in terms of tax administration, and should not be obliged to present quarterly their tax accounts. The NGO representatives say it would be great that same ease were applied to them too, as they also must to submit tax account on quarterly basis.   

Hammer of registering bodies

As of today, it’s only specially trained specialists and jurists who are able to understand the intricate way of the circulation of documents. Incidentally, the novations are an equal nightmare for NGOs heads and registering officials, as none of them know completely how this or that legal norm should be interpreted. This is why everyone is relying on one’s own intuition. Last year, only 20% of organizations managed to have submitted their accounts by 15 April, the term established by the law. Though, last autumn the condominiums and dacha associations were taken out of the effect of Act “On non-commercial organizations”. That will probably improve the statistics but it would not be a solution to the problem.   

The “guilty” NGOs – those who were late with their account submitted or who committed a mistake in making documentation – may be given a warning (its term is not defined) or be fined. After two warnings the registering bodies have the right of putting an action about liquidation. During the period of January-April 2007 6,000 of such warnings were given. Officials affirm that major part of the registered NGOs are actually not working and it is better to get rid of those ghost names. 5,390 of such actions by territorial bodies of registration had been upheld by 1st January 2008. In 2005-2007 the central apparatus alone of the Rosregistration placed over 1,300 lawsuits about stopping the activities by public organizations – and it succeeded in 99% of cases. It should be noted that registering bodies often prefer adhering to their principles to a wish of helping NGOs observe the law. If compulsory liquidation will be applied to all the NGOs failing to submit necessary accounts, the country will be deprived of more than a half of organizations from the “third sector”.       

According to official reports, as of 1 January 2008 227,577 NGOs worked in Russia (the figure was four times as many in 2002). The inter-regional association of the human rights organizations named AGORA has counted that every sixth NGO was checked by the authorities last year. St Petersburg, Nizhniy Novgorod region, also regions of Samara and Sverdlovsk are the leaders in terms of pressure made on civil organizations.  The chair of AGORA Pavel Chikov says that the regional organs of Rosregistration have been engaged in developing various controlling technologies, which now can be applied all over the country. “Rosregistration employees do not make a secret of the fact there is an exchange of experience of control inside the registering service and there is even a kind of competition”.    

Conclusion: legislation intends to make it harder for NGOs. Registering an NGO is more difficult and takes longer than registering a commercial organization. It appears that the law-makers consider NGOs to be more dangerous than commercial ones. However, major part of Russian NGOs has to deal with education and science (32%), culture and sport (27%), health care and labor relations.   

Some will be closed down, some will be favored

As registering bodies are not able physically to check all the NGOs, then the law will be applied selectively. Most “endangered” with the legislative initiatives are the NGOs engaged in things annoying the state – that’s ecologists and human rights activists. Although there is no evidence of mass repressions towards these groups, there is still a “sleeping” opportunity. The state, insisting on application of obviously bad law, is excluding the NGOs from the legal framework.    

The novations do not contribute to achieving of one of the declared objectives – that’s struggle against espionage and terrorism. I don’t think that a spy or a terrorist would register an organization and give accounts about money flows. It would be much more easier to act under a cover of a commercial firm that is accountable only to tax authorities. And now even far from politics organizations will be receiving money in cash from their western partners, and real control will become practically impossible. Actually, the matter is about return of soviet practice where any NGO was considered to be an antigovernment one.    

Constant are reproaches by officials saying about political commitment to foreign NGOs. Half a year after the Georgian Revolution of Roses President Vladimir Putin set the general approach by the authority towards the “third sector” saying that many NGOs are only engaged in getting financing from influential foreign funds or servicing group of business interests, while the real problems of the country and its citizens remain uncared about. Later, in 2007 Vladimir Putin developed the thesis accusing some NGOs of direct interference in the domestic affairs.      

Officials always have a harsh word to say about NGOs working in Caucasus, alleging that all of them are spy nests engaged in hiring new terrorists. No one gives concrete names and actually that is not needed as the anti-western trend is so strong that even foreign powers may be hurt easily (just recall the spy story of “English stone” or besiege laid to the Estonian embassy by Nashi movement activists). However, no NGO has been closed down in Russia for “undermining activities”, which is strange considering our love for exposures and exampling trials.      

The Russian deputy foreign minister Alexander Yakovenko stated in December 2005 that perverted understanding of the Russian foreign policy is caused with the fact that Russian and foreign media quote the opinions by well-financed with foreign capital NGOs. He said the situation had to be improved and the state had to support the NGOs who might do a kind of lobbying of Russian interests. Is it clear now what the officials would like to turn NGOs into?        

The spontaneous and self-organizing NGO environment is a special phenomenon. In Europe and in the USA where this reality seems to be understood right, the NGO legislations are much more liberal, although the bureaucracy there is comparable to ours. The Russian bureaucrat confuses politics with the state administration and takes for revolution any attempt of expressing one’s own opinion different from the official one. This is why in our country NGOs are tried to be placed in rigid frames.     

Part of NGOs will be closed down and those “really promoting the achievement of public welfare” will be favored. In this point the main part will be played by the Russian Public Chamber. As of today, 44% of NGOs are financed from the state budget, 30% have their own earnings, and 37% get support from commercial structures. In 2007 the state support amounted to 29% of the NGO financing. Such financing is done through organizations close to authorities, and state-supported are basically “harmless” social projects. In 2006 the state allotted half a billion rubles for such NGOs, in 2007 the figure was 1 Bn and 250 million rubles, and in 2008 a billion and a half. In 2009 the amount will increase to 2 billions.      

In recent decades it has been talked about “NGO revolution” in the world – that’s the serious strengthening of the “third sector” positions. NGOs are working successfully in many countries, and somewhere they function even more effectively than governments, working in the areas where the state does not want or cannot interfere. That’s about rendering humanitarian aid, education, science, culture, human rights and gender issues. Before the amendments were accepted, NGOs made for 1.5% of the GDP in Russia. Today’s restrictions and bans are capable of causing the situation where innovative potential of NGOs in Russia would not be used effectively soon. And the destiny, in general, of the “third sector” – the basis of the civil society - is getting more and more unpredictable.