Gather evidence and information

WHAT TO DO?

Gather evidence and information on the unintended consequences of the countering the financing of terrorism (CFT) agenda on the operational environment of civil society in your country, whether that is banks blocking transactions to conflict zones or closing NPO accounts; laws being enacted to restrict foreign funding; the introduction of burdensome governance and audit requirements; the prosecution of human rights defenders; or limitations to the right to assemble or protest. 

EXAMPLES

• India (2023): In light of the MER process and the fact that NPOs were not engaged with in the Risk Assessment process, and given the level of suppression of independent Indian civil society in the past years, a Coalition of NPOs put together a number of submissions ahead of the FATF onsite visit in November 2023. 
• Turkey (2021): The Turkish "Law on Preventing Financing of Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction"  entered into force on 31 December 2020, ostensibly "to catch up with international standards in the fight against the financing of terrorism and laundering offenses in light of the 2019 report of the FATF and the UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions”. And although Turkey at that point had not yet conducted a specific NPO Risk Assessment (as was noted in the 2019 Mutual Evaluation Report), 11 articles in the law related directly to NPOs and the civil society legal framework in Turkey, leading the Coalition to make this submission to the FATF.  
  
• Zimbabwe (2021/2022): Read all about Coalition partner Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights' advocacy towards the FATF and the regional body (ESAAMLG) on the Private Voluntary Organisations Amendment Bill. 
• United States: Prior to the FATF evaluation of the US in 2016, Coalition members Charity & Security Network and the Council on Foundations submitted a detailed memo to the FATF Secretariat providing the evaluation team with background information on US counterterrorism laws, the impacts on nonprofit organizations (NPOs) and how this compares to FATF standards. It found that US law failed to meet the FATF criteria of a risk-based approach, proportionality, protection of legitimate NPOs and consistency with human rights and humanitarian law. 
• Empirical research on financial access restrictions: see the Resources page for more.  

RESOURCES

• International Center for Not-for-Profit Law’s Civic Freedom Monitor has up-to-date country-specific information on legal issues affecting civil society and civic freedoms, including freedoms of association, expression, and peaceful assembly.
• The CIVICUS Monitor analyzes the extent to which the rights of freedom of association, expression and peaceful assembly are being respected and upheld worldwide, and the degree to which states are protecting civil society.
• WO=MEN and Human Security Collective produced a research on the impact of CFT and AML measures on NPOs, including de-risking and other measures: the questionnaire is available as a resource on page 41