Managing Risks in Advocacy

Advocacy is an integral part of Helvetas’ projects and programs. As an international non-governmental organization (INGO) operating in 35 countries, our advocacy work combines both insider and outsider approaches, always with the aim to improve the lives of people and communities.

Advocacy and policy dialogue are often most effective at the country level, when working with local and national actors and institutions. Helvetas tries to build the capacities of local partners so that they can raise and address their own issues of concern within their specific contexts. However, the rise of authoritarian regimes, the increase in violent conflicts, and the growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) have introduced critical risks and challenges for pursuing advocacy at the local level. Globally, new trends are also emerging that aim to curb people’s voices and restrict civic participation. In response, Helvetas continues to navigate challenging situations and to evolve its advocacy approaches through learning and adaptation.

Risks imposed through restrictions on registration

As a development INGO, Helvetas operates in numerous contexts where rights-based civil society organizations are not permitted to function. On the one hand, this creates opportunities for Helvetas to engage in spaces that are otherwise closed. On the other hand, it requires significant expertise to navigate extremely narrow or closed civic spaces.

In many countries experiencing authoritarian rule or violent conflict, one of the main hurdles for development and humanitarian actors is restrictive NGO registration laws. Governments often impose lengthy, highly bureaucratic and sometimes nearly impossible conditions for civil society organizations (CSOs) and NGOs to register as legal entities.

The right to freedom of association is a fundamental human right, as it enables organizations to operate legally, receive funding and carry out legitimate activities. Without proper registration, NGOs cannot open bank accounts, receive or disburse funds, or provide essential services as legitimate actors. In many cases, already cumbersome registration processes are further complicated by increased scrutiny of NGOs’ work.

Authorities increasingly use AI and digital tools to review NGO projects, communications and public materials to identify any content perceived as critical of the government. This scrutiny now extends beyond project documents to include joint statements or solidarity positions taken with other civil society actors. Through the use of AI technology, authorities identify such materials and demand their removal. If organizations do not comply, registration processes are deliberately delayed using frivolous justifications.

This trend is not limited to one or two countries but is observed across continents where Helvetas operates. These measures, though often subtle, significantly reduce the space available for civil society. Restrictions apply not only to existing digital footprints; they also deter NGOs from participating in joint actions or collective advocacy in the future.

For large INGOs, this often presents a dilemma: whether to comply with government demands to remain engaged for the benefit of communities, or to withdraw due to an inability to legally register. In such situations, Helvetas makes informed decisions based on the best interests of the communities it serves. As a large NGO supported by donor governments, Helvetas is usually able to go through the registration process; however, local organizations encounter far greater barriers.

Increasingly, there are also risks of staff communications being monitored and surveillance through AI tools. Such risks can be countered through cyber security trainings for staff members and local partners that include the navigation of digital spaces through safe platforms and communication channels.

Restrictions on registration are not limited to authoritarian or conflict-affected contexts. Even in relatively peaceful settings, authorities use legal and administrative procedures to restrict civil society action. Complex registration requirements, excessive reporting obligations and frequent audits create uncertainty and limit organizational flexibility.

Helvetas continues to address the issue of shrinking civic space — particularly restrictions related to association laws — by engaging with donors and international and regional human rights mechanisms when local avenues are closed. At times, building informal NGO coalitions and advocating jointly through international human rights mechanisms has led to limited but meaningful successes.

In some countries, Helvetas also helped to establish formal coalitions and networks (including NGOs, donors, the private sector, and representatives from media or academia) to jointly navigate politically sensitive issues such as land tenure. To a certain degree, such networks can provide a safety net, as governments often hesitate to close a network consisting of different stakeholders versus a single organization working on sensitive issues.

Risks related to terminology

Governments are often highly sensitive to the terminology used in development projects, particularly when rights-based language is involved. Activities related to governance, inclusion, accountability or human rights are frequently labelled as politically sensitive. As a result, organizations may face restrictions on project implementation or limitations on public communication.

In some cases, Helvetas also encounters operational constraints, such as the denial of visas for international staff. These restrictions can leave local partners bearing increased operational responsibilities and risks. Consequently, local organizations may adjust their activities or limit public engagement, contributing to self-censorship and reduced civic participation.

In such contexts, integrating a human rights-based approach across all projects can help to navigate these challenges. It not only provides a critical link between development work and human rights but also serves as an important enabler for working around sensitive terminology. For example, national authorities may perceive an event that is explicitly labelled around a particular human right as overly critical or even offending. However, when the same event is framed around the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals, the sensitivity associated with human rights terminology is often reduced.

Risks of working in violent and fragile contexts

In countries affected by violent conflict, INGOs such as Helvetas and their local partners face significantly heightened risks and threats. In these contexts, the boundaries of protection under international humanitarian law may be unclear or contested. Maintaining neutrality can be particularly challenging, as it may be perceived as a lack of support for one side, thereby increasing risks from multiple actors involved in the conflict.

In such environments, local staff play a critical role. They are often responsible for delivering the final stages of humanitarian assistance and possess deep knowledge of local dynamics, sensitivities and risks. At the same time, they are frequently the most exposed to insecurity.

Through its “outsider advocacy” approach, Helvetas supports local partners by connecting them with international coalitions, platforms and relevant UN human rights mechanisms. While these mechanisms may not always play an active role, local partners’ awareness that they are connected to international humanitarian actors and UN mechanisms can provide a sense of security and reassurance that their safety is being monitored. The facilitation of such channels is not intended to influence or steer ongoing conflicts, but rather to enhance the protection and safety of staff working on the ground.

Risks imposed through partnerships

Helvetas’ development work also extends to the private sector. At times, Helvetas relies heavily on the support of local partners for implementing development projects. In some cases, there are risks that local partners may have allegiances to actors who are undermining development efforts or who may be involved in corruption. Engagement with the private sector also carries significant risks, including the potential for enabling greenwashing under the guise of development projects.

Associations with entities accused of human rights violations or other misconduct may also expose Helvetas to reputational, legal and operational challenges. In some contexts, partnerships may unintentionally undermine the very objectives that projects are designed to achieve.

To mitigate these risks, Helvetas applies rigorous due diligence processes and invests in the capacity development of its local partners. This includes sanctions list screening, politically exposed persons (PEP) checks and ongoing risk assessments, all of which are essential components of Helvetas’ responsible partnership approach. For example, during one due diligence process, the director of a potential partner organization (an NGO) was found to have close ties with convicted war criminals. Helvetas therefore declined the partnership. In another due diligence review, a private-sector partner had serious records of human rights violations, and Helvetas likewise declined that partnership.

Striking the right balance

Shrinking civic space, conflict and digital surveillance are long-term challenges for civil society in authoritarian contexts. Helvetas prioritizes transparent communication with its partners and stakeholders to foster mutual trust and accountability. Regular monitoring and evaluation mechanisms are established to ensure that collaboration remains aligned with ethical standards and organizational values. By promoting open dialogue and learning, Helvetas continues strengthening its ability to anticipate and respond to emerging risks within complex partnership environments.

Helvetas’ experience across countries shows that staying engaged amidst these many risks requires flexibility, ethical reflection and solidarity with local partners. Understanding both political and digital forms of control is essential for responsible and effective action.  

Advocacy is ultimately about people — their safety, their dignity, and their well‑being. It requires constantly navigating delicate balances and determining when to speak out and when silence is the safer option. If at any point our advocacy efforts put any of our staff or the communities we work with at risk, we know we must stop immediately.