This chapter presents a conceptual guide for governments wishing to adopt a comprehensive, strategic and co-ordinated whole-of-government approach to protecting and promoting civic space. Step 1 (Recognise) focuses on recognising civic space as a policy priority. Step 2 (Review) involves undertaking a national assessment to determine the state of play on civic space protection. Step 3 (Respond) concentrates on responding to needs, opportunities and gaps identified in the national assessment. Step 4 (Regular monitoring) explores how to continuously monitor civic space protection to understand challenges, gaps and trends over time, using national-level indicators.
Practical Guide for Policymakers on Protecting and Promoting Civic Space
Abstract
In the past several years, concerns about civic space have risen to the apex of international policy debates (OECD, 2022[1]). Research indicates that against a backdrop of rising autocratisation across the globe, civic freedoms and an enabling environment for civil society can no longer be taken for granted (OECD, 2022[1]). As discussed in Chapter 1, in 2022 OECD member countries responded to these concerns with the inclusion of civic space protection in Pillar 2 of its Reinforcing Democracy Initiative on Enhancing representation, participation and openness in public life, among other policy issues. The OECD’s second Global Forum on Building Trust and Reinforcing Democracy on 21-22 October 2024 included a stocktake of progress made on the Action Plan of Pillar 2 including civic space since 2022 (OECD, 2024[2]). In 2018, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe introduced a recommendation on the need to strengthen the protection and promotion of civil society space in Europe, containing measures to protect and promote the civil society space, notably for human rights defenders and civil society organisations (Council of Europe, 2018[3]). At the European Union (EU) level, there were also significant recent policy developments, with all three major institutions – the Commission, the Council, and the Parliament – acknowledging pressures on civic space (Box 2.1).
2022
The European Commission’s (hereafter “the Commission”) annual report on the application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights focused on the importance of a thriving civic space, highlighting the need for increased support for civil society, along with improvements to their operating environment.
The European Parliament established a commission of inquiry on surveillance to address issues around the alleged misuse of software against various targets, including civil society organisations (CSOs).
The Commission presented the Recommendation on protecting journalists and human rights defenders who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings (‘Strategic lawsuits against public participation’), containing provisions for the introduction of safeguards against SLAPPs, the training of judicial officials, awareness raising, support mechanisms to victims and data collection, reporting and monitoring on the subject, as well as the review of relevant national legal frameworks including regarding defamation.
2023
The European Council adopted conclusions on protecting civic space, emphasising the need to actively shield CSOs from threats, attacks, persecution and smear campaigns.
Following a European Parliament legislative initiative in 2022, the Commission proposed a draft EU Directive on European cross-border associations to simplify their activities across the EU. The European Parliament approved the Directive at first reading in March 2024.
The Commission adopted the Defence of Democracy Package, aiming to fortify the EU's democratic systems. This package includes a Recommendation on promoting the engagement and effective participation of citizens and civil society organisations in public policy-making processes, with specific measures to foster a safe and enabling civic space.
2024
In March, the European Parliament adopted the European Media Freedom Act. The Act, which will be in full effect 15 months after its adoption, tackles fundamental issues regarding media freedom such as media concentration, transparency regarding ownership, funding of public service media and surveillance.
In April, the European Parliament and the Council adopted the EU Directive to counter strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs). The directive introduces as safeguards the possibility of early dismissal and of asking the plaintiff to pay for the estimated cost of procedures. It applies to civil proceedings where the parts are not domiciled in the same country court where the action was filed. The Directive also enables courts to impose additional penalties on the demandants. Furthermore, it ensures that EU member states will refuse recognition and enforcement of third-country judgements when unfounded or based on abusive proceedings.
In May, the European Parliament and the Council adopted the EU AI Act. The Act aims to safeguard fundamental civic freedoms and the rule of law by prohibiting certain artificial intelligence (AI) practices (e.g. any AI system that exploits the vulnerabilities of a specific group of persons; that evaluates or classifies persons based on their social behaviour or known or predicted characteristics; and the use of “real-time” biometric identification systems in public spaces by law enforcement, unless in strictly limited circumstances). It also introduces rigorous requirements for the use of “high-risk” AI systems.
In addition, the Commission’s annual Rule of Law Report monitors developments related to the rule of law in all member states, including as regards the enabling framework for civil society, to detect challenges at an early stage and prevent them from emerging or deepening. Since 2022, the Report also includes concrete recommendations to the member states, including as regards civil society.
Sources: European Council (2023[4]), Council Conclusions on the application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights; The role of the civic space in protecting and promoting fundamental rights in the EU, https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-6675-2023-INIT/en/pdf?utm_source=dsms-auto&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Fundamental+rights%3a+Council+approves+conclusions+on+the+role+of+the+civic+space; European Parliament (2022[5]), European Parliament resolution of 8 March 2022 on the shrinking space for civil society in Europe, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2022-0056_EN.html; European Commission (2022[6]), Commission Recommendation (EU) 2022/758 of 27 April 2022 on protecting journalists and human rights defenders who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings (‘Strategic lawsuits against public participation’), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reco/2022/758/oj; European Commission (2023[7]), Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on European cross-border associations, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52023PC0516; European Commission (2023[8]), Commission Recommendation on promoting the engagement and effective participation of citizens and civil society organisations in public policy-making processes, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=PI_COM:C(2023)8627re; European Commission (2022[9]), A thriving civic space for upholding fundamental rights in the EU 2022 Annual Report on the Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52022DC0716; European Union (2024[10]), Directive (EU) 2024/1069 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded claims or abusive court proceedings (‘Strategic lawsuits against public participation’), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1069/oj; European Parliament (2024[11]), Artificial Intelligence Act, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2024-0138_EN.html; European Parliament (2024[12]), European Media Freedom Act, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2024-0137_EN.pdf.
Understanding of the key role that civic space plays in facilitating more responsive, democratic and inclusive governance is growing. At the same time, policymakers are not yet adopting a comprehensive, strategic and co-ordinated approach to protecting it. Indeed, evidence shows that where OECD member countries are working to protect civic space, efforts are often undertaken by a variety of different public institutions or ministries and are often disjointed and siloed. Respect for dimensions of civic space may also vary across a country, sectors, ministries, and other public institutions. In practice this means there are often differences in approach within a country and actions across the public sector may even be contradictory. Acknowledging this reality and the fact that civic space protection can be considered an emerging policy concern in OECD member countries, the following Chapter aims to provide a conceptual framework to assist governments wishing to adopt a more strategic approach by strengthening co-ordination and monitoring.
Figure 2.1 presents a four-step conceptual guide for governments to consider that links up the many relevant policy areas, laws and institutions, with a view to a more institutionalised, systematic approach. To yield maximum benefits, it is important that Steps 2-4 are conducted in consultation and partnership with an inclusive range of non-governmental stakeholders, ideally including institutionalised mechanisms for civil society to contribute to findings, recommendations, strategies and laws (e.g. as part of advisory councils or committees). Inputs from the public, as part of public consultations or citizens’ assemblies, can also be invaluable.
2.1.1. Step 1. RECOGNISE civic space protection and promotion as a national policy priority
In line with the Luxembourg Declaration, Governments are encouraged to recognise civic space protection and promotion as a national policy priority and a means to strengthen democratic governance. OECD research shows that while the legal foundations for protecting civic space in OECD member countries are relatively strong, there is backsliding in certain areas (OECD, 2022[13]). Approximately 20% of OECD member countries have experienced a decline in the past decade in areas related to liberal democracy and civil liberties, while all surveyed countries face at least some challenges in protecting civic space in practice (OECD, 2022[13]).
Recognition of the need to protect and promote the many dimensions of civic space in a sustained manner and beyond election cycles is a crucial first step for countries to build resilience to any potential democratic backsliding. Centres of government (through offices of the Prime Minister or President) can play an important role in increasing awareness of the concept of civic space, which remains abstract for many and does not translate into all languages. This can help generate the necessary political leadership to pursue a cross-sectoral approach, both horizontally across line ministries and vertically across different levels of government.
While multiple ministries may be involved in initiatives to protect and promote civic space, research indicates that OECD member countries do not have dedicated overarching strategies or policy frameworks in place. However, elements of civic space protection can be – and are being – mainstreamed across different sectors and ministries as part of national frameworks in a wide range of policy areas, as illustrated in Figure 2.2. These include strategies and initiatives related to open government, human rights, civil society, public sector reforms, digitalisation and development co-operation. Policy documents on areas such as strengthening democracy or government programmes and vision statements have the advantage of providing an overarching umbrella for a truly cross-governmental approach.
2.1.2. Step 2. REVIEW the extent to which relevant policies, laws and institutions are fit for purpose and in line with international standards
A thorough analysis of the state of play can help to identify strengths, gaps, blind spots and areas needing reforms, in addition to new legislative and policy needs. A comprehensive “health check” of civic space protection and promotion can be undertaken at regular intervals (e.g. every five years) to assess its status and identify and monitor any emerging trends and concerns. Such an assessment can either be undertaken by the OECD – the Observatory of Civic Space has conducted detailed Country Scans and Reviews for the governments of Finland, Brazil, Tunisia, Romania and Portugal since 2020 – or by governments themselves.
A national assessment can have a number of components:
A review of key policies impacting civic space. This can include an assessment of whether relevant national sectoral or thematic strategies (e.g. democracy strategy, civil society strategy) are fit for purpose, meet citizens’ or CSOs’ needs and have clear objectives with indicators to support implementation.
A review of key laws impacting civic space, including whether they are fit for purpose in a world of fast-changing technological developments, whether legal or other restrictions on civic freedoms are in line with international guidance and norms, and whether there are unintended or indirect consequences of legal frameworks.
A mapping and review of key institutions impacting or monitoring elements of civic space to assess whether they have the resources to fulfil their mandates, whether their mandates meet national needs, and whether they operate in line with international standards, such as the Paris Principles for National Human Rights Institutions.1 Actors can include the centre of government, line ministries, regulatory bodies, oversight institutions, judicial authorities and law enforcement agencies that collectively shape the landscape in which civic space is protected and promoted.
A review of the practical implementation of relevant policies and laws. Evidence shows that this is where most challenges are found due to a gap between de jure and de facto application of relevant frameworks. By engaging with stakeholders as part of an assessment, policymakers can better understand the lived experience of different groups, including the effectiveness and impact of relevant policies and laws on citizens’ lives.
Understanding the breadth of legal frameworks that impact civic space
Civic space protection is anchored in national legal frameworks. Relevant provisions typically address a wide range of policy issues and are usually embedded in a complex web of legal sources that include constitutions; civil codes; criminal codes; legislation on different aspects of civic space (e.g. different types of CSOs, assembly laws); tax laws; and a variety of regulations, decrees and court decisions.
Legal frameworks that have a particular impact on freedom of expression include provisions on defamation and incitement to violence or hate speech that are often addressed in criminal codes or legislation on non-discrimination, while other dedicated laws address areas such as online content moderation or anti-SLAPP measures. Media and communication laws govern the creation, distribution and consumption of information across platforms to ensure responsible and fair practices. Access to information laws – governing the right to seek, receive and impart information – are also key as they are considered an integral component of freedom of expression.
Legal frameworks affecting freedom of association govern the CSO life cycle, fiscal regulations, CSO activities, access to financial resources and relations between the state and civil society. The CSO life cycle, including the formation and functioning of different kinds of CSOs (e.g. NGOs, charities, associations, foundations), registration procedures, as well as rules on termination and dissolution, is often found in association laws or civil codes. Legislation on public benefit status and tax laws can contain relevant provisions on tax breaks for the sector. Furthermore, budget laws and laws on fundraising and money collection can have an impact on access to funding for CSOs, while laws on countering terrorism or money laundering aimed at preventing illicit financial activities and banking laws can have an impact on access to foreign funding.
Some OECD member countries have dedicated laws governing freedom of peaceful assembly, while others have incorporated regulations into broader legal frameworks, such as criminal codes, public order laws or police/law enforcement laws. These legal frameworks usually include provisions related to notifying public authorities, traffic or public transit rules on the time, place and manner of public assemblies to prevent disruptions, as well as sanctions related to violence or property damage occurring during assemblies.
Furthermore, constitutional and other legal frameworks also incorporate cross-cutting provisions that impact civic space on issues such as equality and non-discrimination. These are particularly important to ensure that all persons are treated equally by the state and are able to contribute to policymaking on an equal basis with others. Emergency laws or regulations may also limit civic freedoms during times of crisis, such as natural disasters, public health emergencies or conflicts. Assessing the impact of issues such as exclusion resulting from discrimination and reduced protection of civic freedoms during crises should be an integral part of a national assessment.
Ensuring that legal restrictions are in line with international standards
Ensuring that restrictions on civic freedoms, whether in law or practice, are in line with international standards is equally important. International guidance allows for restrictions on civic freedoms in two scenarios:
In times of an officially proclaimed public emergency which threatens the life of the nation, measures strictly required by the exigencies of the situation may be taken. According to international guidance, these should be time-bound, exercised on a temporary basis, include safeguards such as sunset clauses, and be subject to independent review by the legislature.
When provided for by law and to the extent necessary for the protection of national security or of public order and safety, public health or morals, or for respect of the rights or reputations of others (OECD, 2022[13]). In addition, legal restrictions should be provided for by laws or regulations, and be precise, necessary, proportionate and as unintrusive as possible.
Interpretation of the above concepts can be complex and may ultimately be decided by national (or regional) courts, especially where there is a need to strike a balance between competing policy areas and rights. The balance of conflicting interests, such as national security and freedom of expression, takes into account the importance of both for society at large and may reach a conclusion on the pre-eminence of one over another or legitimate restrictions in different contexts or situations. In relevant cases, the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly emphasised that freedom of expression “constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for each individual’s self-fulfilment”.2 EU member states are thus required “to justify any interference in any kind of expression” (Bychawska-Siniarska, 2017[14]).
Table 2.1 provides an overview of a good practice approach to the most common grounds for restricting civic freedoms (OECD, 2022[13]).
Source: Based on international standards and guidance discussed in OECD (2022[13]), The Protection and Promotion of Civic Space: Strengthening Alignment with International Standards and Guidance, https://doi.org/10.1787/d234e975-en.
Ex ante and ex post regulatory impact assessments (RIA) are a crucial tool to inform decision-makers about the impact of laws, helping them to weigh costs, benefits and trade-offs. The OECD Best Practice Principles for Regulatory Policy stress the importance of considering the unintended consequences and costs associated with policies and regulations, which can disproportionately affect vulnerable segments of society. The principles provide guidance for designing and implementing effective RIA systems. These principles cover topics such as securing commitment and buy-in, establishing proper governance for RIA, enhancing administrative capacity, employing appropriate methodologies, and ensuring continuous evaluation and improvement. The overarching goal is to foster transparency, accountability and inclusivity in the regulatory decision-making process (OECD, 2020[15]).
Recognising unintended consequences of legal frameworks
Legal frameworks covering topics such as cybersecurity, money laundering, financing of terrorism, policing and online content moderation can have significant consequences for civic space. Counter-terrorism and anti-money laundering laws, for example, have had a particularly negative impact on civil society in the past two decades, according to the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism (Ní Aoláin, 2019[16]). While their intended aim is to ensure security, these laws also include provisions that have been used to quell legitimate activities, freedom of expression and reporting in some countries due to overly broad or ill-defined definitions of terrorism. This has led to enhanced financial controls on the CSO sector in some contexts, thereby affecting their access to banking services and their ability to operate, whilst stigmatising the sector as a whole (OECD, 2022[13]). Similarly, regulations on content moderation that require social media platforms to filter, remove or block unlawful content such as hate speech have been criticised by some for their potential to limit freedom of expression. This can take place when content moderation systems remove legitimate content alongside illegal material. In both areas, governments can take action to mitigate unintended or indirect consequences to ensure a balance between competing policy areas or rights, by systematically undertaking RIAs and involving non-governmental actors in the process (see Figure 2.3).
2.1.3. Step 3. RESPOND to identified needs and gaps
Having gained a comprehensive understanding of where a country stands, governments can use the data and information gathered to respond to identified needs, gaps and challenges. For example, a national assessment may indicate that freedom of association is being hampered by disproportionately burdensome administrative requirements for civil society to register or to operate, that think-tanks and watchdog CSOs are struggling to operate because they are unable to access funding, or that freedom of peaceful assembly is being obstructed by an overly restrictive legal framework or policing practices. Responding may include the following steps:
identifying new policy areas or laws that require reforms
addressing a backlog of planned reforms to adapt older legal frameworks and well-established practices to modern-day or emerging challenges
reconciling contradictory laws, as in the case of constitutions recognising civic freedoms, which may be undermined through more restrictive secondary laws, by‑laws or regulations
developing new legislation, regulations, policies, guidance and initiatives in line with national needs
developing national policies and strategies
assigning responsibilities to relevant institutions
responding to implementation challenges (see Step 4. REGULAR MONITORING of civic space protection).
Many challenging areas of civic space protection require a careful balancing of different rights by state actors. Consistent engagement with civil society and the wider public, combined with meaningful dialogue and feedback, can help to strengthen the legitimacy of relevant initiatives. Open Government Partnership Action Plans, which are developed in consultation with civil society as part of a multi-stakeholder approach, are a useful tool to develop a consensus at the national level, co-create commitments and raise standards.3
Ensuring a strategic approach
High-level government objectives as part of an overarching strategy or policy framework on civic space protection (see Figure 2.2) can help to create the necessary political will and momentum for reforms, bolstered by the wide endorsement of senior leadership. Once objectives are in place (e.g. as part of a government programme that commits to strengthening the enabling environment for civil society or a democracy strategy that commits to strengthening civic space), implementation can be mainstreamed across ministries and the public sector more easily. This is key as current practice is often for ministries to engage with civil society and undertake initiatives that impact civic space in isolation and in the absence of strategic goals. In practice, this means that some ministries may be funding the civil society sector generously, just as others are introducing restrictions as a direct or indirect consequence of their actions. An overarching policy framework that guides initiatives in a holistic manner can help to identify and rectify such contradictions. Box 2.2 provides a good practice example of strategic and co-ordinated policy responses on civic space in two countries, Finland and Romania.
The creation of a cross-ministerial working group in Finland
The OECD’s Civic Space Scan of Finland was undertaken by the OECD in consultation with Finnish civil society and included a public consultation. In response to the findings, Finland established a cross-ministerial working group to determine which recommendations should be pursued in existing programmes or projects and which required further work or additional studies. The working group is co-ordinated by the Ministry of Finance and the government intends to undertake another self-assessment on the progress of the recommendations in the future.
An open government strategy with a component on engaging civil society in Romania
Following an Open Government Review and a Civic Space Review of Romania, both conducted by the OECD and published in 2023, the Government of Romania is currently developing an Open Government Strategy with a dedicated component on enhancing civil society in decision-making across the entire public sector. The strategy is being developed in consultation with a range of Romanian CSOs and other non-governmental actors. It is linked to the objectives of the national recovery and resilience plan and will involve actions such as training activities for CSOs and the public administration, the creation of a monitoring dashboard, and the development of an e-consultation platform.
Sources: OECD (2021[20]), Civic Space Scan of Finland, https://doi.org/10.1787/f9e971bd-en; OECD (2023[21]), Open Government Review of Romania, https://doi.org/10.1787/ff20b2d4-en; OECD (2023[22]), Civic Space Review of Romania, https://doi.org/10.1787/f11191be-en.
Assigning responsibility
In addition, as part of an effective response to a national assessment, it is crucial that responsibilities are assigned to institutions and individuals to ensure the effective implementation, co-ordination and oversight of civic space-related initiatives. This requires a clear allocation of mandates and responsibilities across ministerial portfolios and different levels of government. Actors that are relevant for designing, implementing, monitoring and overseeing frameworks that impact civic space are manifold and potentially include the executive (e.g. ministries, administrative organs, data-collection bodies), legislature, judicial and law enforcement authorities at all levels of government (both national and subnational), in addition to independent oversight institutions, among others. Governments can ensure a comprehensive approach by designating a specialised institutional entity, ministry, or agency with overarching responsibility for aspects of civic space, such as CSO-state relations (Table 2.2). Centres of government can play a leading role and focal points within line ministries can help to enhance co-ordination.
Note: For public institutions that have a role to play in non-OECD member countries as part of development co-operation, see Table 3.5.
1. Centres of government, ministries and departments in charge of civil society may also provide funding for the sector.
Source: Based on the results of the 2020 Survey on Open Government (OECD, 2020[23]).
2.1.4. Step 4. REGULAR MONITORING of civic space protection
Assessing how civic space is protected and promoted in practice, requires a comprehensive and nuanced monitoring of the implementation of civic freedoms and elements that shape the enabling environment for CSOs. Regular monitoring scrutinises how existing legal frameworks are translated into tangible realities, influencing the daily lives of citizens and CSOs. Recognising the importance of civic space monitoring, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has called on states to develop transparent methodologies and shared taxonomies, involve different societal actors and maximize access to relevant information to understand the trends and threats to civic space and rely on civic space assessments for identifying early warning signs when situations deteriorate (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2024[24]).
Comprehensive monitoring of civic space protection and promotion is a complex task – not least because so many actors and policy areas are potentially involved – and is not widely developed among OECD member countries. However, it is an essential tool to understand emerging challenges, gaps and progress when initiatives are undertaken. National-level indicators that monitor the objectives, policy frameworks and strategies discussed above, combined with data that reflect different realities across society, are essential components of any monitoring system. This can facilitate a greater understanding of the impact of policy and legal frameworks on different groups of people. For example, disaggregated data can help to identify which groups in society are most affected by initiatives, laws, or restrictions on civic space (e.g. ethnic minorities, women, youth) and which institutions are responsible (e.g. access to information offices, police, local government offices).
At the same time, the systematic generation, dissemination and use of representative, disaggregated data to inform and monitor decisions, laws, strategies and government plans relevant to civic space and the civil society sector can involve co-operation among a range of actors, including national statistical offices, line ministries, National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs), law enforcement agencies, courts, academic institutions, non-governmental stakeholders and affected persons. The gathering and publishing of such data, including as open data, can help to measure and understand emerging trends, improve the effectiveness of responses, and raise awareness of any challenges.
Developing indicators to monitor civic space
Table 2.3 provides a non-exhaustive list of indicators that can help policymakers monitor the many dimensions of civic space protection in OECD member countries and non-members, drawing on the findings in the global report (OECD, 2022[13]) (see Chapter 1). Many are based on administrative and legal data. NHRIs, other independent oversight mechanisms, statistical offices and courts are key sources of relevant data. Crucially, it is key for relevant data to be disaggregated, up to date, of high quality and published regularly so that trends can be monitored. The indicators themselves can also be made public. Finally, countries can apply them domestically and in their development co-operation and other cross-border areas of engagement and influence.
Taking advantage of external data and analysis
As a complement to national data, other qualitative and quantitative data and analyses – from governments, the OECD, international organisations and civil society – can also provide valuable insights to governments to aid the monitoring and understanding of civic space and democracy trends. Government officials can:
Commission or undertake research or case studies (“deep dives”) and evaluations to understand the impact of policy interventions, (new or draft) laws and action plans, in addition to solutions to identified challenges.
Consult indices and qualitative assessments by expert CSOs, academics, think-tanks, ombudsman institutions and NHRIs on the status of implementation of civic freedoms and other relevant laws, e.g. freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, association, press freedom.
Consult quantitative metrics on open governance or democracy, such as the forthcoming OECD’s Citizen Participation Barometer (CPB), which will measure the practice of democratic involvement at the national level across OECD member countries. It understands democratic involvement holistically, encompassing multiple ways for the public to contribute, depending on citizens’ access to relevant government information and the protection of civic space.
Consult OECD publications on civic space protection to obtain a comparative perspective on aspects of protection and to understand what good practice looks like in particular areas. The latest OECD data on civic space protection and promotion was published in 2022 and includes a focus on Europe and Latin America, in addition to OECD member countries as a whole (OECD, 2022[13]). A toolkit on co-ordinating action on civic space will be published in early 2025 to support implementation of the civic space provisions of the DAC Recommendation on Enabling Civil Society. The OECD follow-up publications with new data and guidance will be available in 2025-26. By consulting OECD work on other policy areas such as data governance, data ethics,4 digital government,5 and service design and delivery,6 governments can also help to tap into synergies between civic space protection and these areas.
It is important for governments to engage with non-governmental actors when identifying trends and choosing new metrics to monitor, as affected persons (such as CSOs, media workers and academics) are often the first to be aware of emerging challenges. Ensuring that evidence-based knowledge is used to promote learning across the public sector, raise standards and make policymaking more responsive is also important, as in the case of Portugal harnessing its civic space to undertake public service reforms (Box 2.3).
In response to the preliminary findings of the Review of Civic Space in Portugal: Towards people-centred, rights-based public services which found that public services were not accessible to all members of the population, the Government of Portugal commissioned further research to help it identify solutions to engage with different groups of citizens using emerging technologies. It plans to test potential solutions before large-scale implementation, as part of a broader participation system composed of complementary practices that permit the government to understand people’s real needs and create public services and policies that respond to them.
This approach is in line with the OECD Good Practice Principles for Public Service Design and Delivery in the Digital Age (OECD, 2022[25]), and the overall work of the OECD on civic space and digital government.
Source: OECD (2023[26]), Civic Space Review of Portugal: Towards People-Centred, Rights-Based Public Services, https://doi.org/10.1787/8241c5e3-en; OECD (2022[25]), OECD Good Practice Principles for Public Service Design and Delivery in the Digital Age, https://doi.org/10.1787/2ade500b-en.
References
[14] Bychawska-Siniarska, D. (2017), Protecting the right to freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights: A handbook for legal practitioners, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, https://rm.coe.int/handbook-freedom-of-expression-eng/1680732814.
[3] Council of Europe (2018), Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)11 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the need to strengthen the protection and promotion of civil society space in Europe, https://search.coe.int/cm?i=09000016808fd8b9.
[8] European Commission (2023), Commission Recommendation on promoting the engagement and effective participation of citizens and civil society organisations in public policy-making processes, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=PI_COM%3AC%282023%298627.
[7] European Commission (2023), Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on European cross-border associations, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52023PC0516.
[6] European Commission (2022), Commission Recommendation (EU) 2022/758 of 27 April 2022 on protecting journalists and human rights defenders who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings (‘Strategic lawsuits against public participation’), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32022H0758.
[9] European Commission (2022), REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52022DC0716.
[19] European Commission (2020), Open public consultation on the Digital Services Act, European Commission, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/summary-report-open-public-consultation-digital-services-act-package?cookies=disabled.
[4] European Council (2023), Council Conclusions on the application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights; The role of the civic space in protecting and promoting fundamental rights in the EU, https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-6675-2023-INIT/en/pdf?utm_source=dsms-auto&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Fundamental+rights%3a+Council+approves+conclusions+on+the+role+of+the+civic+space.
[12] European Parliament (2024), European Media Freedom Act, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2024-0137_EN.pdf.
[11] European Parliament (2024), European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 March 2024 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on laying down harmonised rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act), https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2024-0138_EN.html.
[5] European Parliament (2022), European Parliament resolution of 8 March 2022 on the shrinking space for civil society in Europe, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2022-0056_EN.html.
[10] European Union (2024), Directive (EU) 2024/1069 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded claims or abusive court proceedings (‘SLAPPs’), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1069/oj.
[18] Kaye, D. (2019), Promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion, United Nations, Geneva, https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1643488?ln=en&v=pdf.
[16] Ní Aoláin, F. (2019), Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. Impact of measures to address terrorism and violent extremism on civic space and the rights of civil society actors, https://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/40/52.
[2] OECD (2024), OECD Reinforcing Democracy Initiative, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/governance/reinforcing-democracy/.
[26] OECD (2023), Civic Space Review of Portugal: Towards People-Centred, Rights-Based Public Services, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8241c5e3-en.
[22] OECD (2023), Civic Space Review of Romania, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f11191be-en.
[21] OECD (2023), Open Government Review of Romania, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ff20b2d4-en.
[25] OECD (2022), “OECD Good Practice Principles for Public Service Design and Delivery in the Digital Age”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 23, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2ade500b-en.
[1] OECD (2022), OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f765caf6-en.
[13] OECD (2022), The Protection and Promotion of Civic Space: Strengthening Alignment with International Standards and Guidance, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d234e975-en.
[20] OECD (2021), Civic Space Scan of Finland, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f9e971bd-en.
[17] OECD (2021), Webinar Briefing: The Impact of National and Global Security Measures on Civic Space, OECD, Paris, https://web-archive.oecd.org/2021-10-07/612922-impact-national-and-global-security-measures-on-civic-space-summary-report.pdf.
[23] OECD (2020), OECD Survey on Open Government, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/gov/open-government/.
[15] OECD (2020), Regulatory Impact Assessment, OECD Best Practice Principles for Regulatory Policy, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7a9638cb-en.
[24] Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (2024), Civil society space - A/HRC/57/31, https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/ahrc5731-civil-society-space.
[28] Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (2010), National Human Rights Institutions: History, Principles, Role and Responsibilities, https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/PTS-4Rev1-NHRI_en.pdf.
[27] Open Government Partnership (n.d.), Civic Space, Open Government Partnership, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/policy-area/civic-space-and-enabling-environment/.
← 1. For example, the Paris Principles set minimum standards for NHRIs to be considered credible and operate effectively (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2010[28]).
← 2. Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986; Şener v. Turkey, 18 July 2000; Thoma v. Luxembourg, 29 March 2001; Marônek v. Slovakia, 19 April 2001; Dichand and Others v. Austria, 26 February 2002 (Bychawska-Siniarska, 2017[14]).
← 3. As of February 2022, 46 OGP members had made 117 commitments to protect civic space at the national level (Open Government Partnership, n.d.[27]).
← 4. For more information see: https://www.oecd.org/digital/digital-government/good-practice-principles-for-data-ethics-in-the-public-sector.htm.
← 5. For more information see: https://www.oecd.org/gov/digital-government/.