An international NGO planning a food-security programme in a sanctions-affected territory contacts its Swiss-based holding entity to process the disbursement. The compliance officer asks a single, urgent question: does SECO require an authorisation before the funds move? The answer shapes the entire operational timeline.
Humanitarian and NGO authorisations under SECO rules allow organisations to conduct otherwise prohibited transactions in territories or with counterparties covered by Swiss sanctions ordinances, provided the activity falls within the humanitarian carve-out and prior authorisation – or a standing exemption – has been secured. As of June 2026, Switzerland administers its autonomous sanctions through the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO), which issues both general exemptions and case-by-case authorisations for qualifying humanitarian and civil-society activities.
This briefing explains how the SECO authorisation mechanism works, where it converges with and diverges from the UN, EU, and UK positions, what risk flags practitioners watch for, and when to involve sanctions counsel.
Who administers SECO's humanitarian authorisations, and what is the legal basis?
SECO administers Switzerland's economic sanctions regime under the Federal Act on the Implementation of International Sanctions, commonly known as the Embargo Act, and the accompanying ordinances adopted by the Federal Council for each specific sanctions programme. SECO sits within the Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Education and Research and acts as the competent licensing and enforcement authority for Swiss financial and trade sanctions.
The legal structure is ordinance-based. For each sanctions programme, the Federal Council adopts a separate ordinance that sets out the specific prohibitions, asset-freeze rules, and any general exemptions. Humanitarian carve-outs may appear either as a standing provision within the ordinance itself – permitting defined categories of activity without a separate filing – or as a discretionary authorisation mechanism requiring a case-by-case application to SECO.
In our cross-border practice, the first task for any NGO or humanitarian operator is to identify which ordinance applies to their specific programme and counterparty, because the scope of the humanitarian provision is not uniform across Swiss sanctions regimes. An exemption that is automatic under one ordinance may require prior written authorisation under another. This distinction matters enormously for operational planning and procurement timelines.
Switzerland's approach is broadly consistent with international sanctions practice in preserving space for humanitarian action, but the mechanics are distinct from the EU Council-regulation model and from OFAC's general-licence architecture. Understanding those distinctions prevents the practical errors that most commonly delay disbursements and deliveries.
What activities qualify for a humanitarian authorisation?
Qualifying activities under SECO's humanitarian provisions generally cover the supply of basic human needs – food, medicine, medical equipment, shelter materials, and water sanitation infrastructure – together with the financial transfers necessary to fund those deliveries in a sanctions-affected territory or with a sanctions-affected counterparty.
The humanitarian carve-out is not unlimited. SECO distinguishes between:
- activities that fall within a standing ordinance-level exemption and therefore do not require a separate SECO filing;
- activities that are prohibited in principle but for which an authorisation may be granted on application; and
- activities that remain prohibited regardless of the humanitarian purpose.
The third category is the one that operators most frequently underestimate. Certain prohibitions – particularly those targeting designated individuals or entities subject to targeted asset freezes – do not yield to a general humanitarian rationale. An NGO that makes a payment to a designated person, even as part of a salary or a legitimate service contract, engages a prohibition that the humanitarian exemption does not automatically address. A specific authorisation, or a clear factual basis for a different exemption, is required.
Activities that consistently appear within SECO's humanitarian scope include independent monitoring and evaluation, provision of legal aid and protection services, support for civil-society capacity building, and neutral medical care. What is less settled – and what generates the most advisory questions we receive – is the treatment of payments to local implementing partners who have indirect ownership or control links to a listed entity. That question turns on the ownership-and-control analysis discussed below.
The position above covers the standard case. Your facts – the counterparty, the goods, the route, the regime in play – change the analysis significantly. For an initial assessment of your authorisation position under SECO, contact Calder & Vance at info@caldervance.com.
How does SECO's ownership and control test apply to humanitarian operators?
Under Swiss sanctions ordinances, an entity that is owned or controlled by a designated person is generally treated as caught by the same prohibitions as the designated person itself, even if the entity does not appear on the Swiss list by name. This ownership and control (the test for whether a non-listed entity falls within the prohibitions through its relationship with a listed person) concept is critical for humanitarian operators working through local implementing partners in high-risk environments.
The Swiss test looks at both formal ownership – holding shares or membership interests – and effective control, which can arise through contractual arrangements, board composition, or economic dependency. This dual analysis aligns more closely with the EU and UK approach than with OFAC's purely mechanical 50 percent rule (OFAC's rule treating entities owned 50 percent or more by blocked persons as themselves blocked, regardless of control). Under OFAC, the ownership threshold triggers the prohibition automatically. Under SECO – as under OFSI and the EU Council regulations – a control analysis can extend the prohibition further, or in some fact patterns can produce a different result from a pure ownership count.
For an NGO, this has practical consequences. A local partner that is formally majority-owned by a non-listed foundation might nonetheless be controlled by a listed individual through a shareholder agreement or a power of appointment. SECO's analysis would look through the ownership structure to the control reality. We regularly advise humanitarian operators on how to document this analysis before a disbursement is made, because a post-fact reconstruction is always more difficult and carries greater regulatory risk.
The cross-regime divergence creates its own complexity for operators funded through multiple donor chains. An organisation holding a US government grant may also be subject to OFAC's requirements. The stricter prohibition governs any given transaction: if one regime prohibits an activity that another permits or authorises, the operator must comply with the stricter rule. SECO authorisation alone does not provide a defence to an OFAC prohibition, and vice versa.
What is the SECO authorisation procedure in practice?
SECO processes authorisation applications on a case-by-case basis for activities that are not covered by a standing ordinance-level exemption. The application is submitted in writing to SECO's Export Controls and Sanctions division and must describe the proposed activity, the counterparties involved, the humanitarian purpose, and the monitoring and reporting arrangements that will be put in place to ensure funds or goods reach the intended beneficiaries.
SECO does not publish fixed processing timelines in the same way that OFAC publishes indicative review periods. In practice, straightforward applications with clear documentation and established operator relationships tend to be resolved more quickly than complex multi-party programmes or applications involving counterparties with proximity to listed entities. Organisations that have a prior SECO relationship and a track record of reporting compliance are generally better placed than first-time applicants.
The application package typically includes:
- A description of the programme and the specific transactions that require authorisation;
- Identification of all counterparties, implementing partners, and sub-grantees, with ownership and control analysis;
- A statement of the humanitarian purpose and the intended beneficiary population;
- Proposed monitoring, audit, and end-use verification arrangements;
- Any prior authorisations or correspondence with SECO or other regulators relevant to the programme.
Conditions are commonly attached to authorisations. SECO may require periodic reporting, prior notification before funds are transferred to specific sub-grantees, or restrictions on the categories of goods that may be procured under the authorisation. Compliance with those conditions is not optional: a breach can trigger enforcement action even where the underlying humanitarian purpose is unimpeachable.
If a transaction has already been flagged by a correspondent bank, or if SECO has queried an existing programme, an early legal review can preserve options that narrow with time. Contact Calder & Vance at info@caldervance.com to discuss the position.
How does SECO's position compare with the UN, EU, and UK humanitarian carve-outs?
A cross-regime comparison is essential for any organisation that operates across multiple donor chains or that conducts programmes in territories subject to overlapping sanctions regimes. The humanitarian carve-out exists in all four of the major Western regimes, but its scope, procedure, and conditionality differ in ways that create real operational risk.
Under UN Security Council resolutions, humanitarian exemptions are built into the resolution text itself and are administered by the relevant Sanctions Committee. The UN carve-out is generally expressed as a standing permission rather than a prior-authorisation requirement, though notification to the Committee is sometimes required. In practice, UN-level exemptions provide a baseline that national regimes are expected to respect, but they do not automatically override stricter national measures.
The EU regime, under the relevant Council regulations, typically includes a humanitarian exemption that permits member-state competent authorities – and in some cases the operator directly – to authorise transactions for humanitarian purposes. The EU General Court has considered the scope of these provisions in a number of annulment actions, and the jurisprudence indicates that the exemption is read broadly in favour of genuine humanitarian activity, but narrowly where commercial benefit is present.
Under OFSI in the UK, the specific licence (a case-by-case authorisation to conduct an otherwise prohibited transaction) route is the primary mechanism for humanitarian operators where no general licence applies. OFSI has published guidance on humanitarian licensing and has sought to reduce processing times for urgent humanitarian applications. The UK position post-2021 has in some respects diverged from the EU: the exemptions and general licences in place under OFSI are not automatically replicated in the EU, and vice versa.
SECO's position is broadly aligned with the EU model in using an ordinance-level standing exemption as the first line, with a case-by-case authorisation for activities that fall outside it. The key divergence is procedural: Switzerland operates as a non-EU member, and its list of designated persons does not automatically mirror the EU list. An entity delisted by the EU may remain listed under a Swiss ordinance, or be listed on different terms. Operators who assume that EU compliance automatically satisfies SECO are exposed to a gap that courts and regulators have not treated as a good-faith defence.
For a comparative analysis of humanitarian carve-outs across the UN, EU, and Swiss regimes, see our related briefing at Humanitarian authorisation under UN sanctions – explained. For the EU licensing position more generally, our analysis of legal-fees licences under EU sanctions illustrates how the EU case-by-case authorisation mechanism operates in practice.
What are the principal risk flags for humanitarian operators under SECO?
Risk flags under SECO's humanitarian regime cluster around five recurring issues that we see across a broad range of operator types, from large international NGOs to smaller civil-society organisations and diaspora remittance providers.
First, list divergence. As noted above, the Swiss list does not automatically track the EU or UN list. A counterparty that is clear under one regime may be listed under a Swiss ordinance. Screening processes that rely solely on consolidated EU or UN lists will miss Swiss-only designations.
Second, local-partner proximity to listed entities. In high-risk territories, local implementing partners frequently have ownership or control links to entities or individuals with sanctions exposure. The humanitarian purpose of the programme does not override the prohibition on transacting with a listed person or a controlled entity. A structural review of the local partner chain – before funds are committed – is the minimum standard of care.
Third, the breadth of "funds" under Swiss ordinances. Swiss sanctions ordinances typically define "funds" broadly to include not only cash and bank transfers but also financial instruments, economic resources capable of generating income, and in some cases goods. An operator that focuses its screening on financial flows and overlooks in-kind contributions or equipment procurement may have an incomplete picture of its exposure.
Fourth, condition compliance. Authorisations granted by SECO are conditional documents. Operators who meet the conditions at inception but do not maintain ongoing monitoring, audit, and reporting obligations are at risk of a technical breach even where the substantive programme remains humanitarian in character. We have acted for organisations where a failure of internal reporting procedures, rather than any substantive programme issue, was the source of the compliance gap.
Fifth, correspondent-bank friction. Swiss and international banks processing humanitarian payments to high-risk jurisdictions apply their own sanctions screening, which may be more conservative than SECO's formal position. A valid SECO authorisation does not compel a correspondent bank to process a payment. Operators who have not anticipated correspondent-bank friction – and who do not hold documentation sufficient to reassure a compliance officer reviewing a transaction – face processing delays that can compromise time-sensitive programme delivery.
A common misconception about SECO humanitarian authorisations
A myth we encounter regularly in this practice area is the belief that a SECO humanitarian authorisation is a broad, programme-level permission that covers all transactions within a given programme without further analysis. In our experience, this misreads how SECO authorisations work.
An authorisation granted by SECO is specific to the activity, counterparties, and conditions described in the application. If the programme evolves – new sub-grantees are added, the geographic scope expands, the goods category changes, or a counterparty's ownership structure is restructured – the authorisation may no longer cover the new facts. Material changes to an authorised programme should be notified to SECO, and in some cases a fresh authorisation or an amendment is required.
The practical implication is that humanitarian operators need a live compliance process, not a one-time authorisation exercise. The authorisation is the starting point, not the conclusion. Organisations that treat the initial grant as perpetual cover expose themselves to the risk that subsequent transactions fall outside its scope without their having identified the gap.
For an analysis of how export-control rules interact with humanitarian programme delivery and goods procurement, our team also advises on the intersection of SECO authorisations with broader export-control requirements. See also our service page on frozen account management under BIS and the EAR for related US-side considerations.
Related practices
- Frozen account management under BIS and the EAR – US export-control authorisation and asset-freeze management for cross-border operators.
- Humanitarian authorisation under UN sanctions – how UN Security Council humanitarian carve-outs operate and interact with national regimes.