Introduction & Overview

The Problem

A vibrant, legitimate, and well-informed independent sector is essential for a healthy democratic system and government. Through the freedom to associate, assemble, and express themselves, citizens can shape the political and social structures that guide their lives.¹ Consequently, it is in the interest of funders—particularly those who champion transparency, accountability, and civic participation (TAP)—to encourage open civic space where their grantees operate.

Philanthropic initiatives that support civil society organizations (CSOs) in the Global South face are increasing risks to their integrity and impact. The 21st century saw governments around the world introduce a range of measures restricting the ability of CSOs to operate freely. The trend has encompassed an array of repressive laws, regulations, and practices. These include the imposition of excessive bureaucratic procedures, limitations on foreign funding for CSOs, constraints on freedom of assembly and expression, surveillance, explicit restrictions on nongovernmental organizations’ engagement of certain issues, and barriers to where they can operate. Therefore, philanthropists must update their knowledge and approaches to help grantees overcome such challenges.

Reversing the shrinking civic space trend requires a multi-faceted and harmonized approach that prizes trust, efficiency, and local knowledge. There is a robust and ongoing global conversation on this very topic, but the wide range of conversations has diluted both the urgency and nuance in figuring out how to ensure civil society actors can do their work around the world. And compared to what we do know about the shrinking civil space problem, little is known about how individual organizations experience shrinking civic space in different geographic and political contexts,² or the practical solutions funders and grantees use to mitigate the effects of this damaging trend.

The Context

Meaningful civic engagement is crucial to the long-term sustainability and viability of the transparency, accountability, and participation (TAP) field. Yet civil society groups worldwide increasingly face legal and political constraints on their ability to operate freely and independently. ³ Since 2012, governments have proposed or enacted more than 100 laws to restrict the registration, operation, and funding of international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Grantees face legal and physical assaults on their missions, staff, and funding streams.  These challenges would ultimately diminish their influence and ability to serve their constituents. The phenomenon of closing civic space also inhibits civil society functioning, as organizations are forced to divert limited time and resources to fighting state-led physical, administrative, and judicial harassment.

Limiting civic activity is not the purview of authoritarian regimes alone. Restrictions to civic life can occur in a wide variety of political systems and regional, ethnic, and cultural categories. The CIVICUS Monitor shows that more than 3.2 billion people live in countries in which civic space is either closed or repressed. Governments around the world are increasingly asserting their sovereignty and right to define their own development and accountability agendas. In doing so, they favor local responses over international ones.

Combatting the “Foreign Agent” Argument

Research has linked surging nationalism, counterterrorism policies, and a wider questioning of Western power with closing civic space. ⁴ Closing civic space is rooted in the structure of a political system. Attacks on foreign funding for civil society, for example, are often early warning signs of broader, more repressive measures. Such measures have societal ramifications, such as restrictions on freedom of assembly and isolationist policies. The “foreign agent” argument behind restrictive legislation—which argues that civil society organizations do not represent the interests of their fellow citizens but instead of those of a global elite—can be repurposed to support any number of attacks on civil society organizations and society.

These issues are not unique to the TAP sector or to international development actors. The Syrian civil war and the resulting humanitarian crisis, for example, have triggered similar reflection among humanitarian aid funders. Actors from across the international community are contributing to a dynamic, global conversation on how to preserve civic space from numerous angles.

Revisiting Grantmaking

The conversation is gaining momentum during a time of critical reflection in the development community. This reflection involves examining the traditional aid model that governs the funder-grantee relationship. NGOs have long called for an overhaul of multilateral funding managed by the United Nations (UN). Some have requested that more aid is delivered directly to local actors that are directly providing services. ⁵

Funders have also struggled to ease the administrative and reporting burden on grantees while meeting their internal transparency and accountability requirements. These standards often require thorough program monitoring and evaluation and significant time, resources, and specialized skills. While an increased emphasis on measurable results and reporting may improve transparency, rigorous monitoring and reporting requirements often fail to capture local and less empirical forms of knowledge, depriving funders of additional detail to verify those who deliver aid can be held accountable to those who receive it. 

Research suggests that this pressure for professionalization plays a role in the distrust and distance that has emerged between the Western aid system and NGOs—and between NGOs and the grassroots. ⁶ That tension has been exploited by those seeking to limit civic action. Furthermore, for the development and humanitarian sectors alike, available funding tends to become concentrated in top-heavy organizations. The quest for top-down professionalization, accountability, and strong organizational governance has had the unfortunate consequence of distancing donors from their grantees.⁷

New Models and a Way Forward

The conversation on how to combat shrinking space is unfolding in this wider dialogue, adding new dimensions to an already difficult problem. The same practitioners and academics actively seeking solutions to the shrinking space dilemma are often the same thought leaders re-evaluating traditional funding and partnership models.  A new series of questions have emerged around how donors can best support their grantees and partners operating in challenging environments around the world. To effectively navigate this dynamic, donors and grantees must consider the important roles that they play, independently and in relation to one another, in advocating for robust civic participation.

Though the problem of shrinking civic space is not new, it will continue to evolve and take on new dimensions that challenge our collective thinking about the relationship between donors and grantees. Great potential lies in the global community’s effort to learn from successful initiatives, harness new technology, and build creative partnerships to safeguard civil society’s activities and dynamism. Despite the daunting and complex problems it has caused, shrinking civic space could also provide the opportunity to re-evaluate and revitalize philanthropy. 

Why TAI Created This Compendium

The compendium of the Transparency and Accountability Initiative (TAI) are committed to strengthening civic space around the world. In the spirit of “connecting the dots” across this expansive topic, we sought to collate existing resources, tools, and strategies that can be used by both donors and grantees to mitigate some of the challenges that accompany increased restrictions on civic engagement.

As the civic space challenge grows in reach and complexity, stakeholders will need to adapt these approaches to purpose and context. Thus, the strategies below consider both the funder and the grantee perspective (noted in parentheses next to the strategy) and also address how external actors and partners can support nongovernmental organizations’ responses.

Purpose and Approach

This tool is not meant to be an exhaustive review, but a practical, living resource. Examples of approaches, tools, and strategies were drawn from existing cross-disciplinary literature on the transparency, accountability, and civic participation space; from political science, history, and psychology literature; and directly from funders and grantees themselves. The approaches outlined vary from funder-assisted shifts in grantee organizational strategy, to leadership training or mentorship programs, to support for accessing local partnerships, to name a few. We’re eager to learn from like-minded organizations working around the world on this important issue, and to share their experience, knowledge, and insights through this tool.

Organization

This compendium features approaches organized by the problem or challenge faced by either the funder or grantee. Where possible, the target actor (funder or grantee) is identified. With each problem or challenge, the compendium presents the following potential responses:

• Strategies: fresh ideas, modalities, and ways of working to inform how stakeholders think about the shrinking space trend and how to adapt their strategies accordingly.
• Tools: organizations, individuals, and resources that can be used tactically to address a specific problem.
• Country example: lessons from different country contexts where a manifestation of shrinking space occurred and was addressed.

Since the civic space problem is embedded in relationships and systems, responses often address multiple challenges. For example, fostering grassroots partnerships likely has numerous positive externalities, such as increasing access to information and strengthening CSO credibility within a given community. 

Numerous actors and organizations have committed to supporting robust civic engagement. A subsection of them are particularly focused on the search for practical solutions, including:

• International Network of Civil Liberties Organizations
• Protection International
• TechSoup
• CIVICUS
• Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
• The International Human Rights Funders Group
• United States Institute of Peace
• Funders’ Initiative for Civil Society
• Emergency Assistance to Frontline Activists
• Lifeline Embattled CSO Assistance Fund
• Open Government Partnership
• International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL)
• European Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ECNL)

Other initiatives and organizations are listed in relevant sections of the compendium.

Beyond this toolkit, there are more resources available on how to combat shrinking civic space:

• An Overview of Global Initiatives on Countering Closing Space for Civil Society, from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, provides a comprehensive review of existing approaches to the challenge.
• Gaining Ground: A Framework for Developing Strategies and Tactics in Response to Governmental Attacks on NGOs: The International Network of Civil Liberties Organizations’ manual directly addresses closing civic space issues from the perspective of NGOs or grantees. It serves as a useful complement to the funder perspectives represented in the toolkit.
• The 26th edition of Sur – International Journal on Human Rights, is a collaboration between the Fund for Global Human Rights and Conectas, is entitled Sur 26 – Reclaiming Civic Space. Written by authors and activists, it offers a view from the frontlines and the approaches, strategies, and tools are organizations are using to expand civic space.
• Effective Donor Responses to the Challenge of Closing Civic Space by ICNL provides an overview to donor responses to this trend to date, and recommendations on how to move forward.

Human & Digital Security Threats

Background

The phenomenon of closing civic space not only restricts the daily work of civil society organizations but can often translate into harassment and assault. Extra-legal retribution by the state or state-affiliated agencies can range from threatening phone messages to a more extreme instance of physical or sexual assault, arbitrary arrests, disappearances, violent retaliation against peaceful assemblies, torture, and killings. ⁸ The risk of physical harm is higher when civil society organizations and human rights defenders express opinions or disseminate information exposing government failures, weaknesses, or malpractice. ⁹ In many cases, civil society organizations react by self-censoring, relocating, or scaling back their activities out of fear.

Digital security is another major concern for transparency, accountability, and participation grantees. Civil society organizations face the same information security threats as governments and those in the private sector; in fact., civil society organizations, governments, and private sector actors alike may face threats from the same perpetrators. ¹⁰ Threats to digital security could take the form of passive monitoring (e.g. government tracking of organizations’ metadata) and remote intrusion (e.g. targeted malware attacks).

As a result, more organizations use digital monitoring tools to protect their information. These tools have become cheaper and thereby more accessible to the general public, making them also vulnerable to abuse. Advancements in technology and increasing cybersecurity threats make it especially challenging for small, underfunded civil society organizations to keep up.

Funders seeking to support grantees experiencing such difficulties have a number of options. International donors and grantmakers can contribute funding, tools, and knowledge to help prevent grantee vulnerability.

Strategies

• Provide emergency response quick-action assistance (Funder): Funders use rapid response funding for grantees in crises as an increasingly common avenue of support. For example, Solidaire’s model of rapid response funding is a “nimble way to fund opportunities that might otherwise not have access to resources because they are too new, too small, or too urgent.” ¹¹ Funding may be for operations in crises or uprisings, or for creative and entrepreneurial ideas. Emergency support may also come in the form of legal defense, advocacy, or public awareness activities about persecutions.
• Shift staff or operations (Grantee): The vast majority of human-rights-focused organizations in Egypt opted to relocate following the revolution. ¹² When evaluating if relocating is the best recourse, the grantee must consider both legal and nonlegal factors. These include political climate, distance from country of origin, regulatory requirements, requirements for start-up capital, and laws on giving and receiving donations. ¹³ For those activists who cannot relocate their organizations in an emergency, there are options. ProtectDefenders.eu allocates grants for human rights defenders under urgent threat to temporarily relocate within their country or abroad. During the relocation period, defenders are able to rest, seek rehabilitation, build their capacities through training, expand their international network of contacts, pursue their human rights work from a secure location, and prepare their safe return. ¹⁴

• • Assess the level of grantee’s digital security risk (Funder): Funder assessments of a grantee’s vulnerability to digital attack allows grantees to proactively resolve any weak spots before they are exploited. However, these often require outside expertise and coordination among funders. After an assessment, a CSO may need to improve its digital security policies and practices or change its technological infrastructure. A best practice to improve funder coordination on this issue involves hiring IT personnel or outside organizations that can provide assistance to multiple grantees. Doing so can ensure that all grantees are protected against the same kinds of attacks and allow for collective anticipation of further threats. ¹⁵ The Engine Room, Front Line Defenders, and Tactical Tech all offer expertise in this domain. Another key resource is the Digital Security and Grantcraft Guide: An Introductory Guide for Funders, which provides practical tips and tactics for funders to support grantees in mitigating digital security threats.

• Use a preventative strategy: Shift operations toward service delivery or enterprise model (Funder/Grantee): Another funder-driven response to threats to a grantee’s physical person or property involves supporting modifications to the grantee model or mission over time. In a common restructuring approach, the grantee shifts operations toward a service delivery, livelihoods, or social enterprise model. Ethiopian civil society provides some insight into how this strategy works in practice. According to Saskia Brechenmacher of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 70 percent of development organizations and 44 percent of human rights organizations in the country have recently changed their organizational mandates to preserve access to foreign funding. ¹⁶
  Another strategy is CSOs may provide goods or services to people who are willing to buy from them, instead of a commercial store, to express their support for a particular mission. Oxfam and Greenpeace run programs of this kind to provide ethically sourced materials, from water jugs and schoolbooks to goats and green energy. It could also fund its work through modest commissions on payments or goods, with occasional grants or donations from third parties. ¹⁷

• Fund psychological support and counseling (Funder): Human rights organizations and networks have begun to realize the importance of psychological support for defenders, especially in the wake of harassment or physical assault. For example, as a part of its efforts to fight for natural resource justice, the Guatemalan nongovernmental organization (NGO) Unidad de Protección a Defensoras y Defensores de Derechos Humanos de Guatemala has provided psychological counseling services to defenders since 2004. Likewise, the Southern Africa Litigation Center includes psychological services among its offerings.

Tools

• Protective technologies (Funder): Protective technologies or software that prevents hacking—such as encryption methods and off-site data storage—can preserve the integrity of the grantee’s work in a crisis. Software licenses should be encouraged and funded. Civil society organizations often use pirated software and operating systems to reduce cost. Doing so makes them more vulnerable to a range of digital security breaches. The nonprofit TechSoup provides a network of NGOs and civil society and donor organizations technical support and tools to ensure grantees stay legally compliant and gain access to digital tools. TechSoup services include grants management products that track donations and engagement history between donor and grantee. It also provides a host of other innovative software and collaborative platforms. This service can help prevent future threats to physical safety and protect international funding streams.
• Link to online legal protection (Funder): Legal knowledge can help grantees improve their compliance with local laws and regulations that states often use to legitimize their attacks. Such help can come via in-country partners. The web platform and innovative crowdsourcing method Movements.org connects in-country partners with advice and support for compliance with local laws. ¹⁸
• Informal and direct mechanisms for communication during crises (Funder/Grantee): It comes as no surprise that grantees are more vulnerable during crises such as political turmoil and during key moments in the grant reporting cycle, when financial information can be hacked. The Ariadne Network is one of many groups advocating for the use of texts or personal phone calls, rather than formal reporting structures, to deliver key information. Amnesty International has taken this idea further with its Panic Button, a peer-to-peer mobile app alert that allows activists to prepare for attacks, coordinate with networks, and stay safe.
• Training in resilience, security planning, and related skills and capacities (Funder): Protection International provides e-learning courses to train groups in security and protection management. Front Line Defenders also offers risk analysis and protection training, including a practical manual called Workbook on Security. Africans Rising, a Pan-African movement of people and organizations, brings together African NGOs and citizens to express solidarity with those under threat. The 2017 Africans Rising conference—held in Arusha, Tanzania—brought together 272 activist leaders from across Africa. Attendees included grassroots communities, faith-based movements, women, youth, students, farmworkers, and trade unions. They called for protection for human rights defenders and greater government accountability to African youth. ¹⁹

Law or Rule-Based Restrictions

Background

Since 2012, governments around the world have proposed or enacted more than 100 laws to restrict the registration, operation, and funding of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). ²⁰ States wielding such legislative authority regulate NGOs in a number of ways—from scrutiny over activities to bureaucratic hurdles, to required government approval for cross-border funding. Legal or rule-based measures may require NGOs to officially register or conform to bureaucratic requirements from the state to function, limit the scope of issues covered, threaten criminal sanctions for unregistered activities, set criteria for staffing, restrict sources of funding, or limit freedom of peaceful assembly and association. ²¹

Often, these laws are intentionally vague, providing legal top-cover for interested to intervene or block NGO registration and operation on grounds of national security, economic interests, sovereignty, or morals and values. Through politically motivated laws, the state can target advocacy organizations and activists, and restrict the autonomy of development actors. Especially vulnerable are organizations working in support of marginalized populations and issues, such as women’s rights, LGBTI, migrants, and the environment.

Strategies

• Provide in-country partners for local legal compliance (Funder): TechSoup maintains a global network of 70 civil society partners. Collectively, these partners have reached 900,000 organizations and have delivered $8.7 billion in technological tools and philanthropic services. TechSoup catalogs its civil society partners by country and details the services they provide. Specifically, TechSoup’s ”Validation Services” facilitates partnerships with local nonprofits, detailing the ”legal risk” of a particular NGO. The organization created global standards for nonprofits based on legal and regulatory requirements in each country and validates that each potential partner meets these criteria.
• Increase financial support for legal defense, advocacy, or publicity (Funder): The Civic Space Initiative (CSI) whose members are Article 19, CIVICUS, International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL), and the World Movement for Democracy, is an initiative formed to advocate for robust civic action by supporting research, coordination, collaboration between diverse actors. In its second phase, set to last until 2021, the CSI aims to influence policy actors at the global, regional, and national levels to protect civic space, empower civil society actors, and increase awareness and engagement of targeted organizations. CSI also shapes international law by supporting the United Nations special rapporteur on the rights to peaceful assembly and to freedom of association.
• Bolster accounting and auditing practices (Funder): Grantees with stronger and more reliable systems of accounting and auditing are more resilient to government critique and less likely to be targets of undue restrictions. ²²
• Connect grantees to other civil society organizations (CSOs), social enterprises, and alternative groups when confronting restrictive legislation (Funder): It is important for grantees to analyze laws and prepare advocacy campaigns alongside diverse civil society actors to achieve impact at scale, reach the level of national discourse, and build on the expertise of diverse civil society actors. This process also ensures that a wider group has identified the same key issues and problems with the legal framework.
  • Country Example: In Ecuador in 2010, civil society groups invited leaders from different sectors (e.g., business, academia) to analyze the government’s legal framework to regulate CSOs. The meeting resulted in a “manifesto” that listed key areas of agreement. The manifesto became an important advocacy tool to defend Ecuadorian democracy and denounce the new regulations. ²³

Tools

Guides to assess legal risks and engage civil society, media, government, and other stakeholders in advocacy efforts (Funder): The “Defending Civil Society Toolkit”—from World Movement for Democracy Secretariat at the National Endowment for Democracy and ICNL—provides strategies to advocate legal reforms to support civil society. From organizations and activists worldwide, the strategies range from assessing restrictive environments to building the dialogue with the government, parliamentarians, and other stakeholders.

Poor Collaboration and Communication Among CSOs

Background

The international community is increasingly adopting an ecosystems approach to address shrinking civic space. This approach acknowledges the importance of the linkages and communication that occurs among nonprofit organizations, and among informal and grassroots organizations. According to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Global Civic Activism in Flux, “Civic activism has become more sporadic, tactically innovative, and intent on using local autonomy and ownership.” ²⁴ It appears that new forms of civil society are becoming less dependent on established, formalized and institutionalized members and are less likely to channel funds exclusively through traditional nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). ²⁵ Coordination and information sharing among engaged civil society and grassroots organizations can be pivotal to the success of the campaign or movement. This new interpretation and structure of civil society is manifested in global trends. First, the recipients of development, human rights, and humanitarian organizations are increasingly seen as beneficiaries rather than victims without agency. The spread of mobile phones and payment technologies has in part facilitated a power shift away from donor agencies to the grantee and beneficiary base. Secondly, a growing range of organizations seeks to directly serve poor communities, with public-private partnerships between civil society organizations and the business sector becoming more common. All parties need new skills and experience to navigate this changing landscape and to bridge the cultural divide often found between integrated civil society organizations (CSOs), social enterprises, and corporate social responsibility initiatives. ²⁶ Thailand’s mass mobilization through large-scale campaigns, Brazil’s emphasis on local collectives for civic engagement, and the upswing of volunteerism in the Middle East and North Africa illustrate the impact of informal grassroots networks. Given the impact, informal connections between organizations representing diverse interests can have, alongside fast-paced change in this modern era of philanthropy, effective coordination and information sharing among civil society organizations is even more vital to resilience against shrinking civic space.

Strategies

• Support the creation of regional resource centers and NGO platforms (Funder): Funders can effectively support coordination and information sharing amongst their grantees through regional resource centers and platforms. For example, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency installed regional hubs to provide civil society with access to funder knowledge and research. The hubs also provide networking and collaboration opportunities. ²⁷ The Prague Civil Society Center offers an innovative model for coordination based on the specific problem facing the grantee. As a part of its Technology and Innovation Labs platform, the center seeks out new technology and campaigning methods to assist a particular NGO. The center then identifies leading experts and professionals and brings them in to provide training and host workshops for the activists. These training often involve activists from across the world and ideas from the private sector. The parties produce a new project, product, or campaign on behalf of the NGO requesting support. The center funds the most promising projects and supports coordination among global activists to spread knowledge across regions of civil society. ²⁸ Funders have also sought to improve coordination amongst themselves through platforms such as Worldwide Initiatives for Grantmaker Support (WINGS) Forum, which brings together a diverse philanthropic staff to discuss innovations in the sector, share practical lessons, and give inspiration. In 2014, the WINGS Forum met in Istanbul, Turkey, to explore the theme “The Power of Networks.” Members of the philanthropic sector met to discuss developments in infrastructure and the featured success stories. ²⁹
• Use different funding modalities (Funder): Solidaire’s “pooled fund” and “aligned giving” processes provide two different examples. Through a pooled fund, Solidaire provides risk capital for leaders on the ground whose goal is to spark social change. By pooling resources, Solidaire is able to offer funding for creative and “innovative experiments in movement-building” that might not be funded through the traditional proposal process. In contrast to funding short-term experiments and interventions, Solidaire established their “aligned giving strategies” to coordinate the impact of a series of grants Solidaire plans to make over a long time horizon, with a special focus investing in the infrastructure of social movements. Solidaire’s first aligned giving strategy is in support of the Movement for Black Lives, partnering with black-led organizations over the next five years to ensure they have the financial resources necessary to address structural racism and discrimination in the United States. ³⁰
• Support NGOs that act as brokers; help them to access info, raise awareness, advocate, and connect (Funder): An organization’s model of civic engagement is rooted in its cultural and political context. The “new” activism described in the introduction does not always replace or absorb civil society. In fact, it can be a rival. In all eight countries examined in Carnegie’s Global Civic Activism in Flux, new activists explicitly sought to counter “elitist” NGOs as frequently as the state. ³¹ This illustrates why there is no substitute for coordination and information sharing on a local level. The Human Rights Funders Network’s Cross-Border Philanthropy Group uses information exchange, advocacy, and collaboration. Its end goal aims to create an enabling environment that expands local organizations’ access to resources and networks. Numerous organizations and initiatives encourage connectivity and information sharing among NGOs. The Funders’ Initiative for Civil Society and the Donor Working Group on Cross-Border Philanthropy are coordination platforms that bring together funders. In terms of region-specific groups, Human Rights and Democracy Network feature a community of only European NGOs and the Africa Platform has created a network of more than 20 civil society organizations and focuses specifically on state-society relations in post-conflict countries throughout the continent.

Loss of Foreign Funding

Background

Countries worldwide require nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to register with relevant government agencies. While registration is common around the world, in some countries registration can include inspection requirements that allow for government surveillance of operations, limitation of civic freedoms, and limitations to funding, especially around major elections.³² Some countries include additional requirements that should be met when NGOs receive funding from foreign sources. These restrictions can undermine the legitimacy of the grantees themselves, reducing their impact (see “Hostile Local Narratives” section). Thus, international donors have a financial and practical incentive to adjust their funding to grantees working in these contexts to guard against unintended consequences, while grantees are incentivized to seek out domestic financial support that is not subject to as many restrictions.

Most funder responses to legal restrictions address the loss of funding. Perhaps the most efficient and common response to a loss of foreign funding is to connect grantees with legal advice and information. Other responses include scaling back operations, repurposing or rebranding activities for a less politically sensitive area and providing emergency funding responses.

Strategies

Link grantee to local philanthropic organizations and connect foundations in the Global North for a targeted, robust approach (Funder/Grantee): There are a number of methods to address the potential funding shortage faced by grantees. Online brokerage models, for example, link grantees to alternative funding sources within and outside of the country. This approach targets people who are concerned about a particular issue to the projects and campaigns seeking to address it. ³³ GlobalGiving.com is one such platform that partners community organizations and projects with individuals and groups that support them. Founded in 2001, it has secured funding from 400,000 people and 100 companies, raising over $140 million for over 10,000 projects and 150 countries. ³⁴ Models like these – online platforms that allow for direct access to funding from diverse sources – reduce intervention costs, are less labor intensive, and require less management and physical infrastructure. ³⁵ This type of approach can reach beneficiaries in targeted contexts or with specific interests, and its remote vetting and monitoring function allows for this connectivity at a lower cost. However, they can also introduce a higher level of competition among civil society organizations (CSOs); while competition may complicate the search for donor support, it forces organizations to focus on constructively identifying what differentiates them from similar CSOs. Donors themselves will likely need to develop a greater appetite for risk-taking. ³⁶

Consider working with particular branches of local government to facilitate local partnerships and linkages with grantees for shared accountability (Grantee) Decentralized government is a hallmark of many post-colonial countries, particularly across Sub-Saharan Africa. As a result, local ministries of education or health, for example, are often engaged in development projects and develop organic relationships with the civil society organizations they coordinate with on the ground. These partnerships can facilitate greater trust and mutual accountability between government offices and local grassroots organizations. One such example is the USAID ”BALADI” program – Building Alliance for Local Advancement, Development and Investment – in Lebanon. Through this initiative, USAID is encouraging municipalities in cooperation with local NGOs and other civil society organizations, to submit community projects for funding from USAID. ³⁷

Conduct risk analyses of the country context prior to funding (Funder): It is crucial that funders gain a thorough understanding of the political context and risks of a potential grantee. Funders increasingly use this strategy to gauge the likelihood of funding challenges. The European Union’s Human Rights Defenders Mechanism has embraced this approach, including training on risk prevention and early warning systems to anticipate potential threats.

Leverage international support and strengthen diplomatic response (Funder/Grantee): The advocacy approach entails strengthening responses to shrinking space from states and international institutions. Private philanthropy and civil society can shape their engagement with governments and multilateral to highlight the negative trend and difficulties in fighting shrinking civic space. For example, the Obama administration’s Stand with Civil Society agenda included heads of state, civil society leaders, the philanthropic community, and multilateral organizations such as the United Nations. It sought to increase international attention on defending civil society from restrictions. This effort has monitored and tracked legally enabling environments for CSOs, identified civil society champions in government, and provided rapid-response assistance to CSOs facing harassment, among other benefits.

Move beyond emergency funding to multi-year and core funding (Funder): CSOs have been calling for more multi-year and core funding. The Understanding Activism survey ³⁸ — which polled more 1,100 activists, human rights defenders, and civil society leaders from 11 different countries—highlighted the benefits of multi-year core funding. Over the long term, this funding allows CSOs to move away from jumping from project to project to invest funds in their organizational capacity, building their resilience to government crackdowns. It also enables them to be more strategic, focused, and flexible—and therefore more adept at navigating funding challenges and other restrictions. Finally, core funding also enables groups to be more connected to their constituencies.

Hostile Local Narratives

Background

As outlined in Hans Gutbrod’s Distract, Divide, Detach: Using Transparency and Accountability to Justify Regulation of CSOs, governments have been able to manipulate the concepts of transparency and accountability to frame civil society organizations (CSOs) as foreign agents, unrepresentative, and privileged. ³⁹ The government insistence that CSOs maintain transparency around their funding sources goes hand in hand with the accusation that CSOs represent foreign interests.

Framing CSO interests as foreign is an explicit tactic that not only isolates the CSO but also allows the state the moral authority to make further inaccurate claims to delegitimize CSO activity in the country more broadly. Many CSOs do not have a large local membership base, and they benefit from privileges as international organizations. These factors can reinforce the “foreign agent” argument, which may, in turn, undermine their legitimacy as organizations meant to serve and represent their constituencies. 

Coordination and information sharing are important elements to bolster CSO resilience to attack. However, research shows that a sound communication strategy is a critical long-term ingredient to prevent “foreign agent” accusations. Effective communication strategies in a hostile country typically are locally rooted in the culture and somewhat selective in the information they share. This is not to say that CSOs must rely on misrepresentation or deception rather CSOs should communicate the values and initiatives they prize while making their cultural relevance clear.

An effective communications strategy can achieve gains in the human rights field. For example, researchers Daniel Cress and David Snow investigated the communication strategies employed by 15 homeless prevention social movement organizations in eight U.S. cities. They concluded that the success of the movement as a whole was driven in large part by the “rhetorical capabilities” of the organizations and their ability to be “articulate” in explaining their missions when confronted by threats from the state. ⁴⁰ An articulate communications strategy explains a specific issue and the agent at fault and then offers a focused, concrete solution. For example, multiple organizations conducted an analysis and investigation of shelter operations to improve shelter conditions. The Philadelphia Union of the Homeless communicated how the homeless service provider industry had monopolized the public policy discussion on the homelessness issue and posited a solution that ultimately proved effective – insisting that homeless people themselves be a part of the discussion. ⁴¹

Strategies

• Increase support for grantee advocacy or publicity work (Funder/Grantee): The most traditional or widespread funder practice in this area channels funding toward grantee advocacy campaigns to increase positive perceptions of their work and mission. For example, the United Kingdom Charity Bank launched a successful campaign called #CharityIs to specifically challenge negative perceptions concerning the concept of charity. Similarly, the National Endowment for Democracy’s Solidarity Center provides training to and communicates with workers experiencing government repression. Specifically, the center boosts advocacy efforts and facilitates partnerships within campaigns to ensure the campaigns’ relevance and impact within communities of working professionals. These professionals include those working in mines, agriculture, informal marketplaces, and the public sector, and others in need of help organizing and communicating their missions to advocate for their rights. ⁴² TechSoup is similarly exploring how communications training could help its network of more than one million CSOs. It aims to aid the development and adoption of narratives that underscore the value of CSOs and build broader coalitions of support. While TechSoup’s work will initially focus on Eastern Europe, it hopes to share lessons globally.

• Use language local constituencies understand (Grantee): The broader concept of human rights as communicated in international forums may not resonate with some local audiences rooted in diverse religious and cultural traditions. However, ideas such as freedom from unlawful imprisonment or the right to education may draw from local concepts. Therefore, it is often more effective and sustainable to communicate the values of the nongovernmental organization (NGO) or grantee in terms that the local population would find accessible. 
  • Country Example: A study of the Indonesian human rights movement of the 1970s demonstrated the importance of adopting local cultural context under authoritarianism. Activists had called attention to the civil and political rights violations experienced by political prisoners. The government countered such claims by accusing the activists of imposing foreign ideas and standards. By explaining how Indonesia had failed in its promise to deliver the benefits of development and modernization to society as a whole, activists reframed their goals in a manner that resonated with local values. ⁴³
• Use a mitigated transparency approach (Grantee): Funders can support grantees by sharing information about the closing civic space problem among themselves, encouraging revision of grantee communication strategies and connecting them to the necessary resources and training to do so, and linking grantees with local partners. According to research from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, many CSOs under threat are adopting a “‘transparency lite’ approach – being quite transparent about the specifics of their programming in contexts where not they are not facing closing space, but selectively reducing available program information in restrictive environments.” ⁴⁴ Many organizations have chosen to rebrand activities and projects that might be perceived as politically-sensitive to avoid the government crackdown. This act could entail removing rights-based or governance language from mission statements, funding applications, and activity reports. However, it is crucial to note that it is not always feasible to shift a mandate and programming. Larger organizations that have the necessary bureaucratic structure and resources are more successful in this endeavor. ⁴⁵
• Engage in proactive transparency (Grantee): While nimble responsiveness is key, funders of transparency, accountability, and participation (TAP) efforts can retain their focus on increasing the transparency, evidence, and reporting of their programs and investments. The monitoring and evaluation process, while imperfect is one of few available mechanisms that ensure partnerships are selected based on merit and not on political influence or status. ⁴⁶ The process is also a relatively transparent tool for improving accountability, linking funding to tangible performance measures. Recently, organizations such as Accountable Now have made it easier for grantees to comply with transparency regulations. Accountable Now seeks to strengthen CSO performance, public trust in CSOs, and global CSO collaboration on accountability. The organization coordinated with accountability networks from Africa, Asia, Australia, the Caribbean, Europe, Latin America, and North America to develop 12 simple and accessible accountability commitments. Accountable Now members (including Amnesty International, CIVICUS, and Transparency International) report on these commitments annually. While these principles are a voluntary reference standard, Accountable Now will provide opportunities for third-party verification in the future. CSO self-regulation runs the risk of being self-defeating. As Hans Gutbrod discusses in a piece commissioned by the Transparency and Accountability Initiative, governments are increasingly using TAP rhetoric to restrict civic space and CSO activity. CSO transparency can be an important preventative measure to this narrative. However, it can be difficult to find a healthy level of transparency while guarding against the unnecessary risks that might accompany increased disclosures.

The Changing Nature of Partnerships

Background

Many of the successful tactics funders employ to support grantees under threat include expanding local partnerships or enhancing existing relationships—whether with local philanthropic groups, grassroots organizations, or individuals. Several of these approaches go beyond the need to share information and collaborate toward achieving shared goals. While prior partnership tools focused specifically on the need to safeguard funding, coordination, and information sharing, a number of researched approaches present increasing partnerships as its own benefit. ⁴⁷

For instance, there has been a global shift toward joint ventures with the private sector. Professionalized nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and service delivery organizations are seeking out new business models and broader mandates to serve communities in need. To secure funding, many grantees and civil society organizations (CSOs) are taking on commercial services and diversifying their activities beyond the core mission. Some specialized CSOs receive government contracts to provide select public services, creating a new revenue stream. Some CSOs have significant reserves, which could be invested to protect and develop CSO capacity, entering new markets and developing new business models. ⁴⁸  Such initiatives are often possible through loans instead of grants. ⁴⁹

The CIVICUS paper Southern Philanthropy, Social Justice, and Human Rights outlines additional avenues for funders to build partnerships with local organizations. In the Global South, there is a culture of institutionalized philanthropy to support human rights. However, to date, Southern philanthropy has been unable to fill the funding gap left by reduced foreign donor support and increased government restrictions. Still, private, corporate, and family foundations have expanded and increased their activities. CIVICUS finds that cross-regionally, there is greater support for charitable philanthropy that emphasizes immediate and tangible results and service delivery in emerging economies. ⁵⁰ These additional activities mostly accompanied economic growth and a broadening middle class in the Global South and are buoyed by popular support.

Foundations can adapt to these changes in partnership characteristics. Some of the most common approaches to support grantees to build partnerships include increasing core funding, contributing to capacity building, and creating networking opportunities. Networking opportunities include platforms and space for dialogue. As mentioned in the toolbox above, the TechSoup platform features a global network of civil society partners and organizations that can be accessed to seek out local partnerships. Movements.org and GlobalGiving.com offer similar networking opportunities, often to build legal and advocacy capacity as well as information exchange. Organizations like the Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression in Egypt provides a more niche opportunity for academics to share legal findings and support each other in moments of repression. ⁵¹ 

Strategies

• Support community organizing (Funder): Provide space and capacity for community actors to come together, help grantees define problems, identify solutions, and act together. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Developments’ Development Assistance Committee highlighted the importance of aligning nonstate local actors with a state-building approach that emphasizes and includes civil society actors.
• Provide outreach to social service providers (Funder/Grantee): Engage nonprofit health and social service organizations specifically to help them organize and participate in social change activities. The California Endowment Hmong Health Initiative in 2004 demonstrated the impact of involving health organizations specifically. The initiative helped refugees navigate the health care system. This was a multi-region collaborative focusing on advocacy and policy change that proved widely successful. ⁵²
• Provide umbrella grants to trusted NGOs (Funder): NGOs with umbrella grants could manage micro-grants to local partners. For example, the U.S. Agency for International Development’s Office of Transition Initiatives manages partnerships through an umbrella grant to an NGO staffed by Pakistanis who manage relationships with smaller entities. Many larger aid organizations are now seeking to improve upon this streamlined approach rooted in local partnerships. ⁵³
• Identify and train local leaders (Funder): Provide one-on-one peer mentoring or retreats and sabbaticals for leaders. Leadership training stands as a tried-and-true strategy. It promotes more sustainable leadership and empowers actors at the local level to reduce their dependence on international actors for protection. ActionAid Denmark’s Shrinking Political and Civic Space Course is an example of such training. The course ”aims at enhancing the capacity of activists to address the growing global phenomenon of shrinking civic and political space whereby state and non-state actors are increasingly becoming intolerant of civil engagement, citizens expressions and advocacy and campaigns towards effecting [causing] social change.”
• Conduct development programs and training on coalition building (Funder): These efforts could involve constituency development and communications skills-building.
• Support travel, meeting space, and facilitated discussion (Funder): Partnerships require more than a platform for introductions, they depend on safe physical spaces to expand their potential. Initiatives like ”The Spindle,” initiated by an association of Dutch NGOs working in international development, supports events series bringing diverse actors to workshop civic space challenges, facilitate innovation, and build an on and off-line community. ⁵⁴
• Increase research capacity (Funder): Involve think tanks and policy leadership in building institutions and vetting individual leaders who are strategic thinkers.

Private-Sector Pressure

Background

The business and private sectors have been important sources of philanthropic funding. However, their interests at times conflict with those of transparency, accountability, and participation (TAP) organizations. According to the Funders’ Initiative for Civil Society, “In a significant number of countries, state violations of civic space relate directly to the protection of business and corporate interests.” ⁵⁵ Activists have been jailed or assassinated for resisting mining projects or exposing corruption or land disputes.

The benefits of a healthy civil society clearly extend to the business sector as well. However, business perspectives on the TAP space can range from hostile to encouraging. Therefore, it is crucial for funders to identify which businesses may be most inclined to partner with and support grantees. The goal of these partnerships would be creating an enabling environment and shaping the public narrative in support of a strong civil society.

Civic actors have at their disposal a host of methods for navigating the business environment. Grantees can research when and why businesses speak out against civil society repression, improve communications with business and economic ministries, document business-related attacks, and engage investors and companies to determine how investors might positively influence companies. To support grantees in these endeavors, funders must reframe the high-level conversation to highlight the long-term value of civil society over immediate profits. Funders are also well placed to communicate social standards and benchmarks for companies and incentivize progress with rewards. For many of these challenges, funders must coordinate their activities and strategize to fund grantee pushback on business resistance that is rooted in economic interests. ⁵⁶

Strategies

• Recruit business allies (Grantee): Since there are many businesses that celebrate (or at least profit from) the cause of transparency, it can be effective to seek out partnerships to encourage this position. For example, in 2015, independent activist and journalist Rafael Marques was charged with criminal defamation because his book detailed the crimes of several prominent army officers in Angola’s diamond industry. The partnerships that made the difference in advocacy for his release were Tiffany & Co., Leber Jeweler, and Brilliant Earth. ⁵⁷
• Research when and why businesses speak out (Grantee): Bravo Alarcon’s 2004 study of environmental consciousness in Peru shows how business interests can supersede social responsibilities or the public interest. ⁵⁸
• Communicate with business and economic ministries to establish positive partnerships (Grantee): Open for Business, a coalition of global companies, advocates the idea that diverse societies are better for economic growth. ⁵⁹ The group produced a report that has been used for outreach programs in countries with anti-LGBTI sentiment. It has also conducted trainings and roundtables to raise awareness of the business case for inclusion, creating allies and activists in local business communities. ⁶⁰
• Engage with governments to campaign for new clauses to trade and aid agreements (Funder/Grantee): Trade and investment agreements often provide opportunities to enforce protection of the environment and civil society. Trade agreements offer both an obstacle and an opportunity for creating space for civil society. For example, Canada’s minister of natural resources, Joe Oliver, claimed that ‘’there are environmental and radical groups that would seek to block this opportunity to diversify our trade . . . these groups threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda . . . and use funding from foreign special interest groups.’’ ⁶¹ With effective communication and lobbying, trade agreements can become a tool to enhance social standards around protecting civic space; in the absence of such lobbying or protective clauses, their impact can be exploitative.
• Help set realistic, actionable targets for companies (Funder): The B Team, a nonprofit initiative run by a group of business leaders, encourages businesses to become positive forces for social, environmental, and economic well-being. One of the B Team’s approaches is to redefine reward systems for businesses. It seeks to ”integrate social and environmental performance metrics into our compensation structures.” The B Team has championed strong civic space as integral to a healthy business environment. It is also working with researchers and the private sector to develop a guide for chief executive officers and to create a business case for companies to engage with a civic rights agenda. Once these materials are finalized, the B Team plans to move from awareness-raising stage to an action-oriented phase, focusing on sustained civil society-business engagements that strengthen trust. Additionally, the B Team has a memorandum of understanding with Open Government Partnership (OGP). The organizations will coordinate on advocacy at the B20 and G20 global summits, and coordinate business support for country-level open government efforts reflected in their OGP national action plan (NAP) commitments.

Counterterrorism Policies

Background

Counterterrorism policies pose a unique challenge to civic actors. History has shown that governments may seek to inhibit the freedom of expression, association, and assembly to maintain power. This has been observed since the color revolutions in Eurasia and the Arab Spring in the Middle East and North Africa. ⁶² Counterterrorism legislation, which may have legitimate aims, can be a double-edged sword, affording governments a convenient justification for restricting civic action. 

Following the adoption of the United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001) and the UN General Assembly’s Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, governments around the world enacted a series of laws to protect their citizens from terrorism. The flexibility and broad reach of these laws often allowed for fragile states and repressive regimes to target civil society activity under the guise of fighting terrorism. ⁶³

Exacerbating this phenomenon is the lack of a shared global definition of “terrorism.” For example, China’s counterterrorism law defines “terrorism” as ”any advocacy or activity” that aims to create ”social panic, undermine public safety, infringe on personal and property rights, or coerce a state organ or an international organization, in order to achieve political, ideological, or other objectives.” ⁶⁴ Governments often target foreign funding under the cloak of counterterrorism measures, with the justification that greater scrutiny and control of these funds will improve national security outcomes.

International conventions can also have significant effects on country-level policy. Legislation enacted by individual Western governments to prevent terrorism financing has also inhibited NGO operations and funding. In particular, those who work in conflict zones fear being prosecuted. The mandate of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) was expanded in 2001 to target terrorist financing. The mandate required states to specifically review laws and regulations related to the nonprofit sector, stating the sector is ”particularly vulnerable” to terrorism financing abuse. ⁶⁵ This language was amended in 2016, but the damage to the sector’s reputation remains. The Transparency and Accountability Initiative’s report Distract, Divide, Detach further explores how international agreements created to fight terrorism and transnational crime can be used to curtail CSO activity.

Strategies

• Anticipate FATF review periods (Funder/Grantee): More than 180 countries are now committed to implementing FATF recommendations through law and policy. Every six to seven years, members states and organizations operating in those countries are subject to FATF secretariat assessment and peer review to assess compliance. However, FATF is largely insulated from transparency and accountability standards, as there is no intergovernmental body that regulates its activities. ⁶⁶ Furthermore, it has the power to categorize countries as noncompliant, and its actions are not highly visible to the wider public. If grantees do not prepare adequately for a FATF review and perform poorly as a result, their legitimacy is more vulnerable in the eyes of government stakeholders. The review itself—even if the results are benign—can jeopardize the work of grantees whose sources of foreign funding may not be palatable to the government. ⁶⁷
• Advocate a risk-based approach, with laws proportionate to the risk (Funder/Grantee): The risk of terrorism is not comparable across national and political contexts. Research conducted by the Overseas Development Institute ⁶⁸ explores the issue of anti-terror legislation and its impact on humanitarian aid. It concluded that overextending rules designed for severe terrorist threats are often used to exploit relatively innocuous situations to constrain the activity of civil society organizations (CSOs).
• Push for rules on NGO participation, which are needed for transparency and accountability (Funder): The Civil Society Platform on FATF is a formalized effort to work with FATF to avoid the abuse of civil society on the grounds of countering terrorism. The platform outlines the following best practices for funders confronted with restrictive FATF policies:
  • Be aware of the dates for grantee countries’ FATF reviews. The government could be compelled to enforce compliance and limit funding opportunities for CSOs.
  • Advocate rules on NGO participation to promote transparency and accountability in the FATF enforcement process. A “risk-based approach” is a useful frame for pushback. If the laws are truly proportional to the risk, they are less likely to impact the broad spectrum of CSOs.
  • Promote the narrative that a strong civil society is a bulwark against terrorism, not an enemy of governments.

Reduced Advocacy Capacity of Civil Society Organizations

Background

Donor advocacy remains critical in the face of pushback to civil society participation, especially when that advocacy is focused on supporting state responses and international institutions. State representatives have explored how funders can more effectively work with governments and bilateral donors to resist closing civic space, including the U.S. State Department, the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the European Commission’s Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development, and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly.

The majority of these initiatives focus on emergency support in times of crisis, suggesting that governments still take a short-term view of civil society support. Building a resilient civil society, however, must involve skills training, capacity building, and using grantmaking practices that enable these (such as multi-year core funding). While long-term financial support has yet to be realized, state leaders have considerable influence on this issue. By voicing civil society concerns and publicly celebrating leading civil society organizations (CSOs) and their exemplary work, states can advance the legitimacy of this cause.

Private funders are well positioned to support states in this area because they often have a larger appetite for risk and diverse partnerships. Governments and multilateral organizations are more likely to work with philanthropic organizations than with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and private businesses, as philanthropic organizations are nimbler and less political. Funders thus can assist governments in making beneficial connections. Funders can also encourage public officials to make working toward a freer society a condition of accessing shared or pooled funds. ⁶⁹

Strategies

• Engage with international organizations to encourage norm-setting (Funder): One widely cited example of this is the Open Government Partnership Response Policy. The policy was created to address civic space concerns. ⁷⁰ Specifically, the Response Policy aims to maintain OGP’s credibility – and safeguard its long-term future – by helping to ensure that all Participating Countries uphold OGP values and principles as a matter of standard practice.
• Support research on what makes institutions vulnerable to state capture (Funder): This compendium aims to provide resources to defenders of civic space in both the short and the long term. This specific strategy belongs to the latter category. The relatively recent expansion of the closing civic space dilemma is evidence itself of the need to build knowledge of the issue and share our understanding of the components therein; how to enhance CSO and institutional resilience will likely become an important deterrent in the future.
• Understand which regional institutions can make binding rulings. Help sound the alarm when violations occur (Funder):
  • The European Union’s Human Rights Defenders Mechanism provides human rights supporters with research, protection, legal support, urgent advocacy and relocation, and other services that inform a more robust policy approach to the civic space issue.

Tools

Use existing response funds and initiatives with public and private actors (Funder): State representatives have spearheaded key initiatives that indicate their dedication to addressing shrinking civic space. Seventeen governments and two foundations proposed the Lifeline: Embattled CSO Assistance Fund, for emergency assistance. Other examples of joint state-funded projects include the Civil Society Innovation Initiative, the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights assistance fund for human rights defenders, and the work of the Community of Democracies. ⁷¹

Digital Security Resources

Surveillance Self-Defense: Tools and How-Tos For Safer Online Communications

https://ssd.eff.org/en

Surveillance Self-Defense: Human Rights Defender

https://ssd.eff.org/en/playlist/human-rights-defender

Access Now: Digital Security Helpline

https://www.accessnow.org/help/

Tactical Technology Collective: Security In-a-Box

https://tacticaltech.org/projects/security-box

Tactical Technology Collective: Digital Security in Human Rights

https://tacticaltech.org/projects/security-context

Front Line Defenders – Workbook on Security: Practical Steps for Human Rights Defenders at Risk

https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/en/resource-publication/workbook-security-practical-steps-human-rights-defenders-risk

Freedom of the Press Foundation: Security Tools

https://freedom.press/tools/

Committee to Protect Journalists: Security Guide, Covering News in a Dangerous and Changing World

https://www.cpj.org/reports/2012/04/technology-security.php

Internews – SaferJourno: Digital Security Resources for Media Trainers

https://www.internews.org/resource/saferjourno-digital-security-resources-media-trainers

Article 19: Law and Policy Resources

https://www.article19.org/law-and-policy/

Association for Progressive Communications: Internet Rights are Human Rights

https://www.apc.org/en/projects/internet-rights-are-human-rights

ADAPT Game: Google Forms

http://goo.gl/forms/ClTWB6LaLR

Frontier Liberty: Sousveillance and Countersurveillance Tools

https://frontierliberty.com/counter-surveillance

Karen Schoellkopf

https://karenschoellkopf.com/about-me

Security Threat Resources

Scholars at Risk Network

https://www.scholarsatrisk.org/

Protect International

http://protectioninternational.org/

Protect International – Protection of Human Rights Defenders: Best Practices and Lessons Learnt

https://www.protectioninternational.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Best-Practices-and-Lessons-Learnt.pdf

Protect International: e-Learning

https://e-learning.protectioninternational.org/

Defenders Protection Initiative

https://defendersprotection.org

Front Line Defenders

https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/

ProtectDefenders.eu: The European Union Human Rights Defenders

https://www.protectdefenders.eu/en/index.html

EU Human Rights Defenders Relocation Platform

https://www.hrdrelocation.eu/

Worldwide Movement For Human Rights: Financial Support

https://www.fidh.org/en/issues/human-rights-defenders/financial-support/

World Organization Against Torture

http://www.omct.org/human-rights-defenders/links/2015/10/d23598/

Worldwide Movement For Human Rights: Support Fund to Enhance the Protection Capacity of Local Human Rights Defenders Organisations

https://www.fidh.org/en/issues/human-rights-defenders/financial-support/support-fund-to-enhance-the-capacity-of-local-human-rights-defenders

Freedom House

https://freedomhouse.org/

CSO Lifeline: Emergency Assistance

https://www.csolifeline.org/emergency-assistance

Freedom House – Dignity for All: LGBTI Assistance Program

https://freedomhouse.org/program/dignity-all-lgbti-assistance-program

Agir Ensemble pour les Droits de l’Homme (AEDH): Our Emergency Fund

https://www.aedh.org/en/home/what-we-do/emergency-fund-for-human-rights-defenders

Urge Action Fund

https://urgentactionfund.org/

Urge Action Fund – Africa: Grant Application

https://urgentactionfund-africa.or.ke/en/

Open Briefing

http://www.openbriefing.org/about/

Verrimus

http://www.verrimus.com/

The Fund for Global Human Rights

http://globalhumanrights.org/

Amnesty International: Email Contact

Email: [email protected]

American Jewish World Service

https://ajws.org/

Civil Rights Defenders

https://www.civilrightsdefenders.org/

DefendDefenders

https://www.defenddefenders.org/

Protect International: West African Human Rights Defenders Network

http://protectionline.org/source/west-african-human-rights-defenders-network/

Euro-Mediterranean Foundation of Support to Human Rights Defenders

http://www.emhrf.org/

Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development

https://www.forum-asia.org/

Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development: Protection Plan for Human Rights Defenders at Risk

https://www.forum-asia.org/?p=7302

Asian Human Rights Defenders

https://asianhrds.forum-asia.org/

Unit For Protection of Human Rights in Guatemala (Spanish website)

http://udefegua.org/

Inciativa Mesoamericana de Derechos Humanos (Spanish and English websites)

http://im-defensoras.org/es/

http://im-defensoras.org/en/