Forcing the Russian NGO Movement Out in the Cold
The Russian Duma is considering new legislation that would restrict the activity of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The Duma wants to force all of Russia’s 450,000 NGOs to re-register, which will be nothing more than a bureaucratic mess. As pointed out in Kathleen Braden’s wonderful op-ed in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (click here), this won’t be a problem for the big, national, well-funded NGOs. But it will be disastrous for the local community-based groups, spread out through Siberia and the Russian Far East, who will be dependent on the Oblomov-like whims of local bureaucrats for their success in re-registering. Many new people who want to make a difference will be scared away from becoming NGO activists. And some ofRussia’s brightest lights – people who are truly working toward sustainable and positive change in the society – will end up without support.
Supposedly, the Russian government wants to prevent foreign funding of political campaigns. I don’t have a problem with this. We have restrictions in the U.S. that prevent Pacific Environment, as a 501c3 charitable organization, from endorsing political candidates or spending more than a modest amount of our time and resources to lobby for legislation.However, these restrictions should be as minimal as possible to protect a free and open discourse. There are no restrictions here on our ability to raise concerns about administrative officials or administrative policies or to publicize issues, even if they are controversial. But inRussia, some pundits are saying that a ban on political activity should include a ban on working with the media to publicize issues or a ban on raising concerns about actions by governors or other administrative officials.
This would be ridiculous. Russian NGOs have played a fundamentally important role over the last decade in helping to promote rule of law within Russia. In the environmental sphere, they have helped ensure Russia’s Law on the Protection of the Environment and Law on Environmental Impact Reviews have been implemented. They have prevented capricious actions by local officials and companies when they did not follow a fair process of due diligence in reviewing industrial projects. Most of all, they have steadfastly argued for regular, engaged public participation to ensure that communities have a say in their environmental future. A recent article from Dow Jones highlights the role our partners at Sakhalin Environment Watch play in helping local government officials, who don’t have the resources to monitor large oil and gas companies like Shell and Exxon. In the article, Sergei Kotelnikov, Sakhalin’s head environmental regulator, said that “he relies heavily on information passed to his staff by local environmental groups such as Green Patrol and Sakhalin Environment Watch.”
As we wait for the pollution from Harbin to flow down the Amur River to Khabarovsk, and indigenous communities who live along the Amur worry about eating fish, don’t we want communities to have a voice in ensuring that they have access to clean water? What will happen if communities don’t have the ability to organize as professional NGOs and engage the government and the private sector in a healthy and open dialogue about the future, and instead problems are allowed to fester?
I hope that President Putin and the Duma will re-consider this proposed law. Meanwhile, inRussia’s increasingly hostile climate, I think it becomes even more important for organizations like our own to maintain and strengthen our partnerships with groups in Siberia and the Russian Far East who are working to create positive change in the society.
Cheers,
David Gordon
Tags: capacity building, NGOs
