The aim of relevant sections of the Survey was to understand the legal, policy and institutional frameworks and practices that protect and promote civic space and citizen and stakeholder participation in decision and policy making at the national level. More specifically, it aimed to provide a baseline of information on government practice in relation to protecting and promoting civic space, in addition to identifying good practices, trends and discussing implementation challenges.
The resulting baseline of government data on which the report is based provides a unique perspective on civic space that complements the rich literature, data and analysis that are available from civil society. The data are presented as follows:
Chapter 2: The protection and promotion of civic freedoms (e.g. freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly, association and the right to privacy).
Chapter 3: Protecting and promoting the right to access information.
Chapter 4: Media freedoms and civic space in the digital age.
Chapter 5: Fostering an enabling environment for citizens and civil society to effectively participate in public life.
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on civic space is discussed as a cross-cutting issue throughout the report, as are the themes of equality, inclusion, non-discrimination and democratic participation.
Based on the Survey, the report conducts an exploratory analysis across a wide variety of themes, while acknowledging that complex implementation challenges cannot be grasped through a limited number of survey questions. Given this limitation and the need to focus on gathering quantifiable and verifiable data to facilitate the OECD’s rigorous data validation process, the Survey focused on de jure aspects of civic space. The data provided by governments are complemented with data and analysis from independent sources (e.g. civil society organisations [CSOs], research institutions, United Nations [UN] bodies, regional human rights bodies and academic sources). Data and analysis from sources other than governments are clearly indicated as such throughout the report.
The Survey and report benefitted from inputs from different teams within the OECD Public Governance Directorate, including teams working on digital government, gender, rule of law, policy coherence for sustainable development, public integrity, youth, and governance indicators and policy evaluation, in addition to other OECD directorates working on development cooperation, science, technology and innovation, and the Office of the Secretary-General. Members of the Observatory of Civic Space Advisory Group, the European Union (EU) Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and Access Info also provided comments on the Survey.
Crucially, survey respondents were explicitly requested to provide data based on national legal frameworks that were applicable in normal circumstances, not emergency or temporary measures, e.g. due to the onset of COVID‑19. This is because, when the Survey was drafted in 2020, temporary emergency measures had just been introduced in many countries. Recognising that in some respondents, measures are in fact still in place or have been partially or fully reintroduced, discussions on the impact of the pandemic are mainstreamed throughout the report and addressed in dedicated sections (see in particular: Section 2.1.5 in Chapter 2 on COVID-19-related changes to legal frameworks in OECD Members; Section 3.3 in Chapter 3 on trends, challenges and opportunities for strengthening access to information; and Section 5.3.2 on good practice in supporting CSOs in the context of COVID‑19 and Section 5.6 in Chapter 5 on key challenges and restrictions for CSOs operating in the EU during the pandemic.)
The recommendations and suggested measures that are included in the report are drawn from a variety of sources, both descriptive (e.g. government data provided by respondents to the OECD Survey, analysis from CSOs and academia, good practices) and prescriptive (e.g. existing OECD standards, international standards). Sources are clearly identified throughout the text.
Given the complexity of the Survey and the fact that the COVID‑19 crisis unfolded in parallel to the data collection process, some respondents did not provide answers to all questions. Wherever a respondent did not provide data on a specific question, the OECD either undertook desk research to fill the gap or noted the absence of data under the respective figure and adjusted the calculation baseline. Respondents were requested to validate the data based on desk research.
The report includes contributions by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), the Mo Ibrahim Foundation, the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL) and the European Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ECNL).
