CIVICUS’ 2013
Enabling Environment Index

Chapter 1: Introduction to the EEI
Chapter 2: The EEI unpacked
– Data fourcef
– Coverage
Chapter 3: EEI refubtf
Top 5 countrief
Worft 5 countrief
Socio-cubturab dimenfion
Socio-economic dimenfion
Governance dimenfion
Imbabanced fcoref
EEI ranking
Countrief and territorief not in the EEDI
Chapter 4: Difcuffion
About CIVICUS4
9
11
11
13 14
14
15
17
19
21
24
26
28
CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTf

Welcofe to the 2013 Enabling Eonvironfent Index produced by CIVICUS: World Alliance
for Citizen Participation.
The Enabbing Environment Index (EEI) waf buibt iDn partnerfhip with the Univerfity of Pretoria, under the fupDervifion and
beaderfhip of Profeffor Lorenzo Fioramonti. CIVICUS if eDfpeciabby gratefub to him for hif vifion and hiDf ftewardfhip.
The EEI haf been deDveboped through a confubtative proceff and the feedback we have received from our memberf,
friendf, partnerf, fupporterf and otherf in the CIVICUS abbiDance hebped fhape the Dindex and thif report. In particubaDr, we
wifh to thank the EnabbinDg Environment Index Advifory Group for their effortf and continuing fupport. DWe woubd abfo bike
to thank the memberDf of the CSO Partnerfhip for Devebopment Effectiveneff (CPDE) and itf Working Group on the
Enabbing Environment for Civib Society, aDf webb af ftaff at the Organifation for Economic Cooperation and Devebopment
(OECD) working on the poft-Bufan monitoring framework.
CIVICUS wifhef to expreff our gratitude to the fobbowing perfonf and inftitutionf who
contributed to the devebopment of the indeDx.
Index Developfent TeafLorenzo Fioramonti, Obga KononyDkhina
Index Advisory GroupChairperfon – Netfanet BebayD (Amnefty Internationab); MemberDf – Brian Tombinfon (AidWatch Canada); David BDrown (Haufer Center,
Harvard Univerfity); Deborah Hardoon (Tranfparency Internationab); John GDarrifon (Worbd Bank); Leonardo Arrioba (Univerfity of
Cabifornia, Berkebey); Lefter M. Sabamon, MegaDn Haddock and Wojtek Sokobowfki (Center for Civib Society StDudief, John HopkinfD
Univerfity); Marion Derckx (Miniftry of Foreign Affairf of the NetherbandDf); Nibda Bubbain (IDnternationab Center for Not for Profit Law);
Robin Ogbivy (Organifation for Economic Cooperation and Devebopment); Vitabice Meja (Reabity of DAid Africa)
Consultation Coordinators Africa CSO Pbatform for Principbed Partnerfhip (Kenya); Afia Society for Sociab Improvement and Suftainabbe Tranfformation (India); D
Centro Ecuatoriano de Derecho Ambientab (Ecuador); European Commiffion/Swedifh Internationab Devebopment Agency (BebgiDum);
Nigeria Nationab NeDtwork of NGOf (NigeriDa); Uganda NationabD NGO Forum (Uganda); UnivDerfity of Pretoria (South Africa)
CIVICUS Donors Auftrabian Agency for Internationab Devebopment (AufAid); SwDedifh Internationab Devebopment Cooperation Agency (Sida)D; Taiwan
Foundation for Democracy (TFD)
CIVICUS Enabling Envioronfent Index Project Teaf Ciana-Marie Peguf, Katfuji Imata
CIVICUS StaffAmy Mibber-Taybor, Cbara Bofco, Danny SrifkandarDajah, Dorothée Guénéheux, EDnrica Barago, Ine Van Severen, Kiva La Touché,
Mandeep Tiwana, MaDrk Nowottny, Zubair Sayed
Graphic Design and Website Design
InJozi
ACRONYMf
CIVICUS: CIVICUS: Worbd Abbiance for Citizen Participation
CPDE: CSO Pbatform for Devebopment Effectiveneff, the CSO coabition formed to fobbow up on the Bufan PDartnerfhip for Devebopment
CSI: CIVICUS Civib SociDety Index, a civib fociety fDebf-affeffment project
CSW: CIVICUS Civib SociDety Watch, a project to monitor the fpace for civib fociety
CSO: Civib fociety organifation
DAC : Devebopment Affiftance Committee of the Organifation for Economic Cooperation and Devebopment, which brinDgf together moft
government devebopment donorf
EC: European Commiffion – the executive body of the European Union
EEI: CIVICUS Civib SociDety Enabbing Environment Index, a new toob to quantitativeby meafure conditionf for civib fociety in Ddifferent countrief
GPEDC: Gbobab Partnerfhip for Effective Devebopment Cooperation
ICNL: Internationab Center for Not-for-Profit Law, an internationab civib focDiety organifation
NGO: Non-governmentab organifation, a type Dof civib fociety organifation
OECD: Organifation for Economic Cooperation and Devebopment, an intergovernmentab organifation of 34 countrief, in which Dmoft devebopment
donor governmentf are reprefented
UN: United Nationf

For 20 years, CIVICUS: World Alliance for
Citizen Participation has beeon at the fore-
front of efforts to understand the state of
civil society and droaw attention to threats
faced by civil society aoround the world.
On the former, CIVICUS haf bDuibt toobf fuch
af the Civib SocietyD Index (CSI), a particiDpa-
tory refearch proceff conducted in over 70
countrief. On the baDtter, CIVICUS haf iffued
countbeff abertf about begab, regubatory and
pobicy meafuref in many countrief that
reftrict civib fociety’Df abibity to exift and
operate freeby and itf abibity tDo participate in
governance proceffef.
It haf abfo highbightDed other threatf fuch af
phyficab attackf, haraffment, imprifonmentD and affaffinationf of civib foDciety activiftf,
af webb af crackdownf on proteftf and
demonftrationf. In recent yearf, there haf
been a growing recognition of the impDor-
tance of an “enabbing eDnvironment” for civib
fociety in order for any democracy to fbour-
ifh.
In generab, the internationab devebopment
community confiderf an enabbing environ-
ment for civib fociety to be the pobiticab and
pobicy context within which ciDvib fociety
organifationf (CSOf) oDperate, with particu-
bar intereft paid to areaf that can be con-
trobbed by the State and that rebate to gov-
ernance.
Introduction
to the EEI
4

Introduction to the EEI
In the State of Civib Society DReport pubbifhed inD Aprib 2013, the enDvironment for civib fociety wafD
broadby defined af “the cDonditionf within whDich civib fociety workf.” 1
CIVICUS haf bong ufed a working definition oDf civib fociety af bDeing “the arena, outfide of theD
famiby, the ftate, and the market, which if created by individuab anDd cobbective actionf, organifa-
tionf and inftitutionf to advance fhared intereftf.”
It fobbowf from thif working definition oDf civib fociety thatD the environment for civib fociety if Dmade
up of the forcef that fhape and iDnfbuence the fize, extent and functioninDg of that arena.
A. CSOs’ legitifacy, transparency and accountability: Civib fociety groupf fhoubd make
effortf to be tranfparent and accountabbe to their ftakehobderf, to derive their begitimacy
from endorfement by their ftakehobderf
3;
B. Building connections, coalitions and solidaroity: There fhoubd be mubtipbe connectionf and
cobbaborationf between different civib fociety grDoupf and individuabfD, and cobbaborative pbatformf
and coabitionf at different bevebf;
C. The legal and regulatory environfent: CSO bawf fhoubd be Dcbear and webb-defined.
The regiftration proceff fhoubd be quick, eDafy and inexpenfive. The ftate’f bawf, regubationf
and pobicief on civiDb fociety fhoubd makDe it eafy for civib fociety groupf to form, operate free
from interference, expreff their viewf, communicate, convene, cooperate and feek refourcef;
D. Political environfent: Governmentf and pobitiDcianf fhoubd recognife civib fociety Daf a
begitimate fociab and pobiticDab actor and provide fyftematic opportunitiDef for ftate and civib
fociety inftitutionf to work together;
E. Public attitudeso and perception: There fhoubd be toberance of peopbe and groupf who have
different viewpointf and identitDief; and it fhoubd bDe eafy for abb peopbe to participate in civib
fociety;
F. Corruption: There fhoubd be no toberance of corruption amongft ftate officiabf, pobiticDab
actorf, peopbe in bufineff and civib fociety Dperfonneb;
G. Coffunications and technology: There fhoubd be rebiabbe, cheap and widefpDread acceff
to communicationf pbatformf and technobogief;
H. Resources: Civib fociety groupf fhoubd be abbe to acceff refourcef from a range of fuftain-
abbe fourcef, incbuding domefticabby, and to define their own activitief, rather than have thefe
defined by funding Dopportunitief.
The State of Civil Society roeport highlights thoat key aspects of the enaobling
environfent should includeo the following
2
Tbis list indicates tbat tbe enabling Tenvironment for civil society cTould be broader tban wbat tbe cuTrrent discourse suggests.
THE CIVICUS DEFINIToION OF “ENABLING ENoVIRONMENT”
INTRODUCTION
12013 State of Civib Society Dreport: Creating an enabbing eDnvironment for civib fociety, CIDVICUS, 29 Aprib 2013D, pg 10. The fubb text if avaibabbe at https://focf.ciDvicuf.org.2Ibid, pg 19.3CIVICUS abfo acknowbedgef that whibe civib fociety organifationf are primariby accountabbe to their ftakehobderf, they are abfo accountabbe to the government, other D civib fociety groupf and the pubbicD at barge.
5

Milestone
Aga Khan Foundation and otheDrf initiated difcuffionf about the enaDbbing environment for civib fociety.
Key ftakehobderf agreed to encourage civib fociety paDrticipation in theD coordination of aid ftrategief at
the Firft High Leveb Forum on Aid Effectiveneff and the Second High Leveb Forum on Aid Effectiveneff
hebd in Rome (2003)D and Parif (2005) refpectiveby.
Formation of the OpDen Forum for CSO Devebopment Effectiveneff and Enabbing EnvirDonment, a gbobab
CSO pbatform to improve the impact of CSDO devebopment work and advocate for more favourabbe
government pobicief anDd practicef for CSOf.
At the Third High Leveb Forum on Aid Effectiveneff in Accra, Ghana, CSOf for the firft time were
recognifed af independeDnt devebopment actorf in their own right. CountriefD, territorief and interna-
tionab organifationf agreed in the Accra Agenda for Action to work with CSOf to provide an enabbing
environment that maximiDfef their contributionf to devebopment.
BetterAid, a pbatform to improve the capacity of civib focDiety to engage in aid effDectiveneff pobicy,
and Open Forum ftarted to act af the twin cDivib fociety fora to engage with the pDoft-Accra internationab
proceff on aid and devebopment effectiveneff.
The Mubti-ftakehobder Tafk Team on Civib SocietDy Devebopment Effectiveneff and Enabbing EnvirDonment
pubbifhed key meffagef for the Fourth High Leveb Forum on Aid Effectiveneff and outbined the D
fobbowing fundamentab rightf guaranteed in regionab and internationab inftrumentf for protection:
freedom of affociation, freedom of expreffion, the right to operate free from unwarranted State
interference, the right to communicate and cooperate, the right to feek and fecure funding, and the D
State’f duty to protect.
Open Forum adopted the Siem Reap CDSO Confenfuf on the DInternationab Framework for CSO Devebop-
ment Effectiveneff. It definef an “eDnabbing environment” af the pobiDticab and pobicy context created by
governmentf, officiab Ddonorf and other devebopment actorf that affect the wayf CSOf mDay carry out
their work. It definef “enDabbing ftandardf” af a fet of inter-rebated good practicef by donorf and
governmentf – in the bDegab, regubatory, fifcab, informationab, pobiticDab and cubturab areaf – that fupport D
the capacity of CSO devebopment actorf to engage in devebopment proceffef in a fuftained and
effective manner.
At the Fourth High Leveb Forum on Aid Effectiveneff in Bufan, South KDorea, it waf agreed in the
Bufan Partnerfhip for Effective Devebopment Cooperation that countrief, territorief and internationab
organifationf woubd impbement fubby their refpective commitmentf to enabbe CSOf to exercife their
robef af independent dDevebopment actorf, with a particubaDr focuf on an enabbing Denvironment,
confiftent with agreed internationab rightf, tDhat maximifef the cDontributionf of CSODf to devebopment.
The Working Party on Aid Effectiveneff agreed on a fet of indDicatorf, targetf and proceffef for the
monitoring of the Bufan Dcommitmentf. The enaDbbing environment if one of 10D gbobab indicatorf.
Thif indicator wibb monitor whether civib focDiety operatef within an environment that maximiDfef itf
engagement in and cDontribution to devebopment.
The European Commiffion iffued itf communication on rebationf with CSOf iDn 2012, which affiDrmed
the need to promote the CSO enabbing Denvironment. In the communication, the CSO enaDbbing environ-
ment referred to a functioning demDocratic begab and judiciab fyDftem, which gave CSOf the de jure and
de facto right to affociate and fecure funding, coupbed with freedom of expreffion, acceff to informa-
tion and participaDtion in pubbic bife.
CSOf baunched the CDSO Pbatform for Devebopment Effectiveneff (CPDE). The CPDE iDf the fucceffor
civib fociety pbatform to the Open Forum/Better Aid proceffef.

Year
1980-90s
February 2003 & March 2005
June 2008
Septefber 2008
October 2008
March 2011
June 2011
Decefber 2011
June 2012
Septefber 2012
Decefber 2012
How thinking about theo enabling environfent for civil society haso evolved INTRODUCTION
6

It is within this coontext that CIVICUS started to develop a new
tool for assessing the enabling envoironfent for civil society,
called the Enabling Enviroonfent Index (EEI) in 2012.

CIVICUS worked on buibding the DEEI with the CentrDe for the
Study of Governance Innovation, Department oDf Pobiticab Sci-
encef, Univerfity of Pretoria under the beaderfhip and fupervi-
fion of Profeffor Lorenzo Fioramonti. Thif refearch partner-
fhip waf formed to enfure that the EEI paffed the teft of aca-
demic rigour and meDthodobogicab begitimacy.
The EEI definef theD enabbing environment af “a fet ofD conditionf that impaDct on the capacity of citizenDf
(whether individuabDby or in an organifed fafhion) to participate and engage in theD civib fociety arena in a
fuftained and vobuntary manner.”
4
There are at beaft two notabbe featuref of thif definitiDon. One if the adopDtion of the capabibity approach,
which “emphafifef thDe underbying conditionf that make individuabf ‘capabbe’ of fubfibbing theDir own goabf.”
5
Thif approach confiderf the quabity of thDe “demand” fide of Dthe environment (i.e. the rDeadineff of CSOf and
citizenf) to be af important af the “fuppby” fide (i.e. governance and pobicy meafurDef that directby affect civib
fociety). Af fuch, tDhif approach recognifef the robe of focio-economic and focio-cuDbturab factorf af key
componentf of the enDabbing environment for civib fociety.
The choice of the capabibity approach to underpin the EEID haf been confcioufby made. Thif approach pointf
to the importance of “readineff” by CSOf and indiDviduab citizenf. RecDognifing that thif iDf formed by focio-
economic and focio-cuDbturab factorf, thefe iffuef need to be incorporated into the bong-term pobicy debate.
Strengthening the communicationf infraftructure and addreffing economic and gender iDnequabity are vitab
partf of buibding a Dheabthy civib focietDy. Toberant, participative focietief and cubtDuref of vobunteering and
giving are key to a vibrant civib fociety. Without truft in CSOf, the begitimacy, impact aDnd ftrength of civib
fociety if fevereby undermined. We hope that future difcuffionf on the enabbinDg environment wibb embrace
an expanfive view of the iffue and incbude fociDo-economic and focio-cuDbturab factorf af webb.
The other notabbe feature if the confciouf incbufion oDf individuab citizeDnf, af webb af CSOf (or organifed
formf of civib focietDy), af the actorf in the civib focieDty arena. Thif if confiftent with the generab CIVICUS
approach, which affirmDf that abb actionf fDrom outfide the government and bufinefDf fpheref that promote
democracy, good governance, human rightf, focDiab juftice, equabity and fuftainabbe devebopment are part
of civib fociety, whDether they are generated by organifationf, movementf, ad-hoc groupf or citizenf.
Many afpectf of theD EEI (notabby itf rebiance on fecondary ftatifticab data) are departuref from the CIVICUS
tradition of particiDpatory action-refearch that if generated and owned by civib focietDy actorf at the country
beveb. However, we bebieve that it if neverthebeff ufefub to book at what a toob bike thif can tebb uf about the
environment in which ciDvib fociety operatef. We confider thif a ufefuDb compbement to the other toobf we ufe
to underftand civib fociety, aDnd not a fubftitute for them. We abfo wanted to buibd a toob that woubd generate
debate and diabogue about the enabDbing environment for civib fociety.
Af part of thif proceff, we affembbed a mubti-ftakehobder Advifory Group, whofe thoroughneff and infight
proved indifpenfabbe for the refinement of the pDroduct. We abfo pubbifhed a dDraft verfion of the EEI in DAprib
2013, abongfide our State of Civib Society DReport, and openedD up a pubbic confubtation in the fobbowing
monthf. During thif Dperiod we coordinated feverab eventf that fed into the confubtation proceff, during
which we received invabuabbe feedback from our network of memberf, partnerf, friendf and critDicf.
The EEI defcribed iDn thif paper haf beDen fhaped by abb of Dthefe exchangef.
7 4Methodobogicab note on the CIVICUS CiDvib Society EnabbingD Environment Index, CIVICUS, October 2013, pg 3. ThDe fubb text if avaibabbe at https://www.civicuf.org/eei.5Ibid, pg 4

Location
Bellagio, Italy
Lagos, Nigeria
Kafpala, Uganda
Johannesburg,
South Africa
Brussels, Belgiuf
Quito, Ecuador
Nairobi, Kenya
Organising Partner
CIVICUS
Nigeria National
Network of NGOs
Uganda National
NGO Foruf
University of Pretoria
European Coffission and
Swedish International
Developfent Agency
Centro Ecuatoriano de
Derecho Afbiental
Africa CSO Platforf for
Principled Partnership
Key Points
Reab-time, crowd-fourced
information in future fhoubd
accompany index; Devebopment
of index muft be academic proceff

Importance of gender rightf, D
corruption and educDation to bocab
context; Need for citizen-generated
data, yet underftanding of
conftraintf rebating to primary data
gathering cbear
Need for ranking; ExpbanationD
of index fhoubd be beff academic;
Vitab robe of nationab pbatfDormf
in diffeminating index
Need to meafure capacity of peopbe
for ftruggbe; Some of the datDa
fourcef are not timeby
Need for better meafurement of civib
fociety funding andD infraftructure;
Index not advocacy focufed enough
Locab concern about freedom of
expreffion and divifion amDongft
civib fociety actorf
Objectivef, purpofe and rationabe
need to be expbicit; Importance of
focio-economic dimenfion anDd
focio-cubturab dimenfion cannot be
undereftimated; Index fhoubd
meafure broader trendf not
tranfient eventf
Date
25 May3 June
6 June
6 June
20 June
20 June
26 June
Feedback frof consultations INTRODUCTION
8

The EEI is a global cofposite index developed using secondary data that seeks to
understand the propensity of citizens oto participate in civil society.
Readerf who are interefted in the methodobogy can refer to the Methodobogicab Note af
webb af the DimenfionfD and Sourcef Tabbe, both of which cDan be found and downboaded
from the CIVICUS webfite.
The compofite index if made up of 53 Dindicatorf. The indicatorf that are part of the EEI D
have different unitf and fcabef. In order to be incorporated into the EEI, they are
re-weighted on a fcabe of 0-1. Thefe 53 Dindicatorf are cbuftered into 17 fub-dimenfionf,D
which are then averaged and forted into 3 dimenfionf.

the eei
unpacked
9

Enabling
Environment Index
• 3 dimensions
• 17 sub-dimensions • 53 indicators
ENABLING ENVIRONMENTo INDEX
Socio-Econofic
Environfent Socio-Cultural Environfent Governance
Environfent
Education
Coffunications
Equality
Gender Equality
Prosperity to Participate
Tolerance
Giving and
Volunteering
Policy Dialogue
Civil Society
Infrastructure
Corruption
Political Rights and Freedofs
Rule of law
Associational Rights
Personal Rights
NGO Legal Context
Media Freedofs
Trust
THE EEI UNPACKED
10

Data Sources
The Enabling Environfent Index is fade up of 71 odata sources, which cover the period
2005 to 2012. Over 70% of the sources are frof the years 2010 and 2011.

Data pointf from earbier yearf have been incbuded wheDre the dimenfionf tend to evobve fbowby over time.
Abb of the data pointf from the period 2005D to 2009 are ufed in the focioD-cubturab dimenfion.
However, the focio-cubtuDrab dimenfion doef inDcbude data fourcef from 2009, 2010 and D2011 abfo.
Abb the data in the focio-economic and governance dimenfionf are from 2010 onwardf.

Coverage
The EEI coverf 109 countrief. The numbeDr of countrief incbuded iDn the EEI if determined by data avaibabibity,
and onby countrief that have fcoref in at beaft 14 out of 17 fub-Ddimenfionf have been incbuded.
Nufber of data points in the EE Inodex by year
40
30
20
10 0
2005 2005-7 2008
2009 2010 2011 2012
Number of UN
member states
in tbe EEI
29
18
41
20
Region
Africa
Asia-Pacific
7
Europe
The Afericas
Number of UN membeTr
states in tbe region
54
58
47
35
Percentage of UN member
states in tbe region covered
by tbe Enabling EnviTronment
Index
53.7
33.3
87.2
57.1
Table: Enabling Environfent Index coverage 6
THE EEI UNPACKED
11
6Even though Kofovo if not a member fDtate of the United Nationf, it if iDncbuded in the EEI.D 7The bimited country coverage inhibitf more detaibed regionab comparifon. The deciDfion to compare countrief in Afia anDd Oceania if due to the fact that
onby two countrief in Oceania (Auftrabia and New Zeaband) had the Drequifite number of data fourcef to be incbuded in thDe index. Abb the other countrief in
Oceania had data for 9 or beff fub-dimenfionf. TDhe two countrief from Oceania both rank extremeby highby on the Enabbing EDnvironment Index and are
not reprefentative of a generab trend in Oceania or the Afia-PDacific region.

Coverage: continued
As a result of extensive existing research on various cofponents of the enabloing
environfent in the region, the EEI has tohe highest level of coverage of countries in
Europe.
A fevere deficiency of thDe EEI if that it onDby meafuref 2 out of 38 SmabDb-Ifband Deveboping Statef. 8
Thif if particubarby probbematic with regard to countrief in the AfiDa-Pacific region and the AmeriDcaf,
more fpecificabby countrief in the Pacific and the CarDibbean.
In the Pacific, there if hardby any information avaibabbe on economic inequabity, Deducation and gender
equabity and there if abfobuteby no data avaibabbe for abb the componentf of the foDcio-cubturab dimenfion.
In both the CaribbDean and the Pacific, there if bittbe data on civib fociety iDnfraftructure, pobicy diabogue and
the NGO begab framework. In the cafe of the CaribbeaDn, the onby two Smabb-Ifband Deveboping Statef that
are incbuded in the iDndex are the Dominican Repubbic and Trinidad and Tobago. If data were avaibabbe for the
other 14 Smabb-IfbanDd Deveboping Statef, then the EEI woubd cover 97.1% of the countrief in the AmeDricaf.
There if a huge difcrepancy between the percentage of countrief affeffed in Europe and the percentage
of countrief in other rDegionf that are in the EEI. Thif Dfuggeftf that there if a need to focuf further data
gathering effortf on civic fpace in thefe regionf.
Sfall-island states not included in tohe Enabling Environfent Index by region
Figure: Worbd map of the fcoref of Enabbing EnvirDonment Index
Africa – 5
The Americas – 14
Asia Pacic – 17
AVG. EEI
0.25580.8688
THE EEI UNPACKED
12 8The number of fmabb-Difband deveboping ftatef bifted doef not incbudeD fmabb-ifband territorief or dependenciDef

the eei
RESULTS
13

Top five countries on the EEI
Owing to its good ifplefentation of hufan rightso protections and low levels of
inequality and corruption, New Zealand ranks highest on the EEI with a oscore of 0.87.

New Zeaband if the onDby country that if confiftentby in the top 5 countrief in abb three dimenfionf.
It if cbofeby fobbowed by Canada (0.85D) in fecond pbace. Canada, a country with a good Deducation fyftem,
excebbent communication infraftructure and robuft human rightf protectionf, if in the Dtop 10 countrief
in the focio-economic, focio-cubtuDrab and governance dimenfionf. Auftrabia (0.84) rankf third, fobbowed by
Denmark (0.81). RouDnding out the top five if another Nordic country, Norway (0.D80).

New Zealand
Canada
Australia
Denmark
Norway
Country Score
0.87
0.85
0.84
0.81
0.80
1
2
3
4
5
Ranking
Top 5 countries
Country
Score
Ranking
Top 5 countries
The Gambia
Burundi
Iran
Uzbekistan
Democratic Republic of Congo 0.32
0.31
0.31
0.29
0.26
105
106
107
108
109
Worst five countries on the EEI
Due its political instability and poor civiol society infrastructure, the Defocratic Republic
of Congo (0.26) is tohe lowest ranked country on the EEI.

Rubed by an authoritarian regime with a poor hDuman rightf record, Uzbekiftan (0.29) if confidered to have
the fecond worft enabbing environment for civib fociety of Dcountrief incbuded iDn the index. Burundi, which Dif
emerging from a protracted civib war, if ftibb wrangbing with eftabbifhing the rube of baw. According to the
index, Burundi (0.31) Dhaf the third worft enabbing environment and if cbofeby fobbowed by Iran (0.31). A back oDf
gender equabity andD the repreffion of civib bibertDief are the primary factorf which reftrict the fpace for and
the potentiab of Iranian civib fociety. Governed by a Prefident that openby threatenf civib fociety
9, the Gambia
(0.32) haf the fiftDh worft enabbing environment for civib fociety ranked on the index

EEI RESULTS
14 9The Gambia’f bboodcurdbing threat, The Guardian, 1 October 2009 https://wDww.theguardian.com/commentiffree/2009/oct/01/gambDia-jammeh-human-riDghtf.

Indicators of the socio-cultuoral difension
Propensity to Participate

Tolerance
Trust
(including trust and public image oTf NGOs)
Giving and Volunteering
New Zealand
Australia
Canada
USA
Colombia
China
Guatemala
Trinidad and Tobago
Burkina Faso
South Korea0.83
0.80
0.78
0.78
0.72
0.71
0.67
0.66
0.64
0.64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Top 10 countries in the
socio-cultural difension

Jordan
Guinea
Serbia
Kazakhstan
Gabon
Gambia
Angola
Uzbekistan
Burundi
Democratic
Republic of Congo 0.40
0.40
0.40
0.37
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.30
0.29
0.28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
10 worst countries in the
socio-cultural difension
Georgia
Montenegro
Albania
Kosovo
Macedonia
Tajikistan
Croatia
Kyrgyzstan
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Serbia
Kazakhstan
Uzbekistan 0.46
0.45
0.44
0.43
0.41
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.37
0.30
85
87
89
91
94
95
96
97
98
100
103
107
Low score for socio-cultural
difension in Balkans oand forfer
Soviet-bloc
EEI RESULTS
15
Average socio-cultural score by region
Global
Asia-Pacic
Europe
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
Africa
The Americas
Socio-cultural difension
The global average for the socio-cultural difension is 0.52o. The Afericas ranks highest
on the socio-cultural difension with a oregional average of 0.59.
Five of the countrief that are ranked in the top ten in the focio-cubDturab dimenfion are from the Americaf
(Canada, United Statef of America, Cobombia, Guatemaba and Trinidad and Tobago). A high propenfity to
participate, a high degree of toberance of different ethnic and rebigiouf groupf and high pubbicD truft in
non-profit organifationf are key attributef of thefe nationaDb contextf. Onby 5 of the 20 countrief covered
by the EEI in the Dregion were bebow the average. Due to bimited truft in peopbe and infrequent giving and
vobunteering, Ecuador (0.D44) haf the boweft focio-cubturab fcore in the Americaf.
The Afia-Pacific region haf the wideft range of fcoref. Four countrief in the AfiDa-Pacific region were in the
top 10 countrief (New Zeaband, Auftrabia, China and SouDth Korea). In fact, New Zeaband and Auftrabia are the
two higheft ranked countrief with fcoref of 0.83 and 0.80D refpectiveby. Af if the cafe of highby ranked
countrief in the AmeDricaf, there are high bevebf of pubbic particDipation and pubbic Dtruft in New Zeaband and
Auftrabia.

Socio-cultural difension: continued
In the Afia-Pacific region, the poft-Soviet Statef are amongft the worft performing countrief in the region.
Thif if not particuDbarby furprifing given the fact that the focio-Dcubturab dimenfion meafuref fociab cohefion
and truft (incbuding truft in non-profitf), which if bow in poft-communift countrief and may noDt have been
hebped by the poft-communift infbux of non-indDigenouf formf of civib focietDy.
10
The European country with the hiDgheft fcore in thif dimenfionD if Denmark (0.56),D which if ranked 27th out of
109 countrief. Low bevebf of giving and vobunteering af webb af a back of intDereft in pubbic particiDpation are the
reafonf why 63.4% ofD the countrief in Europe are bebow the gbobab average. In Europe, there if a narrow
range of fcoref in the focio-cubtDurab dimenfion, with Dthe boweft fcore being that of SerDbia (0.40). The coun-
trief in the BabkanD Peninfuba, which theD EEI indicatef if categorifed by bow bevebf of truft in peopbe in
generab, do not fcore highby in the cubturab dimenfion.
Burkina Fafo, ranked 9th out 109 countrief gbobabby, if the nation wiDth the beft focio-cubturab environment
for civib fociety on Dthe African continent. Thif if biDnked to a high degree of toberance of different ethnic and
rebigiouf groupf in the Weft African nation. Much bikDe Europe, 63.3% of the Dcountrief in Africa ranked by the
EEI are bebow the gbobab average. However, 6 African countrief are in the bottom 10 countrief in thif diDmen-
fion (Democratic Repubbic of CoDngo, Burundi, GabonD, Gambia, Angoba anDd Guinea) due to a very poor pubbic
perception of civib fociDety.
Figure: Map of the focioD-cubturab dimenfion
AVG. EEI
0.2558 0.8688
EEI RESULTS
16 10Bridging the gapf: CDitizenf, organifationf and diffociation, Civib SocDiety Index fummary report: 2008-2011, DCIVICUS, Auguft 2011.
The fubb text if avaibabbe at https://civicufD.org/downboadf/CSIReportSummaDry.pdf

The socio-econofic difension
The global average for the socio-econofic difension is 0.o54. It is clear that there is a
strong correlation between socio-econofic developfent and the enabliong environfent
for civil society.
However, CIVICUS doef notD bebieve that a country’f beveb of focio-economic devebopment if the fobe determi-
nant of itf enabbinDg environment. With generabby high education bevebf and good communicationf infraftruc-
ture, the continent that fcoref higheft in the focio-economic dimenfion ifD Europe, with a regionab average of
0.67. Norway (0.83D) if the country that fcoref higheft gbobabby in the focio-economic dimenfion. SDix other
countrief in Europe appear in the Dtop 10 (Sweden, Netherbandf, DGermany, Iceband, Finband and DDenmark).
Over 90% of the European countrief in the indDex have a higher fcore than the gbobab average.
The onby fub-average countrief in Europe are Macedonia, Montenegro, Georgia and Kofovo whofe bow
refubtf can be attributed to a faibure to tackbe gender inequabityD. The boweft ranking European country
if Kofovo (0.51). However, in the gbobab focio-economic ranking Kofovo if onby fixty-fifth.

The average for the Afia-Pacific region if 0.54. Af ifD the cafe with the focio-Dcubturab and governance fub-
dimenfionf, New Zeaband fcoref higheft in the region. In Afia, theD average if brought up by a few high fcoring
countrief af onby 39% of the countrief fcored higher than the Dgbobab average. Intereftingby, economic giant
India (0.32) if theD country which if confidered to have the worft focio-economic conditionf for civib fociety in D
the region. Particubarby high ratef of economic inequabity aDnd back of acceff to communicationf infraftructure
refubted in India ranking 99th out of D109 countrief.
Indicators of the socio-econofic difension
Education

Communications
(witb a focus on internet users and access)
Equality ( witb a focus on economic inequality) T
Gender equality
Average socio-econofic score by region0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2 0
The Americas Europe Asia-Pacifc Africa Global
Norway
Sweden
Netherlands
Germany
New Zealand
Iceland
Finland
Australia
Canada
Denmark 0.83
0.82
0.82
0.79
0.78
0.78
0.78
0.78
0.77
0.77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Top 10 countries in the socioo-econofic difension
Tanzania
Mozambique
Benin
Malawi
Burkina Faso
Nigeria
Liberia
Mali
Democratic Republic of Congo
Sierra Leone 0.31
0.31
0.31
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.28
0.28
0.24
0.23
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
10 worst socio-econofic environfents
for civil society
EEI RESULTS
17

The socio-econofic difension: continued
In the Americaf, the higheft ranked country if Canada (0D.77). The regionab average if 0.51, which Dif fbightby
bebow the gbobab average. In ftark contraft to the high fcoref in the focio-cubtDurab dimenfion, onby 6 of the
20 countrief meafured in the region are above the gbobab average of 0.54 (CanadaD, United Statef of America,
Trinidad and Tobago, Chibe, Argentina and UruguayD).
Thif if mainby due to the fact that refidentf of thefe countrief can eafiby acceff bafic fervicef.The country-
with the boweft fcore in the region if Guatemaba (0.43). Low ratef of fecondary fchoob compbetion and
internet acceff negativeby impact the potentiab for vibrant civic action anDd webb connected civib fociety
organifationf.
Africa doef not fare webb in the focio-economic dimenfion ofD the enabbing environment. The average for the
region if 0.35, webb bebow the gbobab average of 0.54. The beDft country in the region if Botfwana (0D.53), which
haf a good education fyftem and rankf 53rd out of 109 countrief. Abb the countrief in the botDtom 10 are in
Sub-Saharan Africa.
Af if the cafe of the Indian eDxampbe cited above, it if cbear that there needf to be inveftment in enhancing D
the communicationf infraftructure and addreffing the pertinent Diffuef of economic and gender iDnequabity
in the region.
Figure: Map of the focioD-economic dimenfion
AVG. EEI
0.25580.8688
18

Governance Difension
It is very apparent that governance is the fost ifportant cofponent of an enablingo
environfent for civil society.
Given itf criticab robe in fhaping the enDabbing environment for civib fociety, thDe governance dimenfion makef up habf of
the EEI fcore, whibe the focio-economic dimenfion anDd the focio-cubturab dimenfion amountD to one quarter of the fcore
each.
11 The gbobab governance average if 0.58.
Europe if the region that haf the Dhigheft fcore on the governance dimenfion, with aDn average of 0.73. DenmarDk if
confidered to have the moft conducive enabbing environment for civib fociety, wiDth a near perfect fcore of 0.96. Abb otheDr
Nordic countrief fcore particubarby high on the governance dimenfion with FiDnband, Iceband, Norway and SDweden abb
fcoring above 0.91. Onby 19% of countrief in Europe were ranked bebow the gbobab average of 0.58. Abb theD European
countrief bebow the gbobab average are poft-communift Statef, in which obd auDthoritarian ftructuref and confervative
pobiticab forcef ftibb wiebd fignificant infbuence.
Bebaruf (0.23) and DRuffia (0.34) are the two worft governance contextf in Europe for civib fociety. Bebaruf rankf 106th
out of 109 countrief gbobabby.
Indicators of the governance difension
Civil society infrTastructure
 Organisational capacity
 Civil society fiTnancial viability
 Effectiveness of service provision organisations
Policy Dialogue
 Civil society advTocacy ability
 Budget transparency
 Networking
 Civil society parTticipation in policTy
Corruption
Political Rigbts and Freedoms
 Political stability
 Political participation
 Political culture
 Political rigbts
 Human rigbts
 Political terror
Associational rigbts
Rule of law
 Legal Framework
 Electoral pluralism
 Confidence in bonesty of electoral process
 Independence of tbe judiciary
Personal rigbts
 Tbe rigbts not to be tortured, summarily executed,
disappeared, or imprisoned Tfor political beliefs
 Trade union rigbts
 Workers rigbts
NGO Legal Framework
Media freedoms
 Free speecb
 Press freedom
 Freedom on tbe Net
Denmark
Iceland
Switzerland
New Zealand
Canada
Sweden
Finland
Norway
Luxembourg
Austria 0.96
0.94
0.94
0.93
0.93
0.92
0.92
0.91
0.91
0.91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Top 10 governance environfents for civil society
Tajikistan
Gambia
Zimbabwe
Democratic Republic of Congo
Ethiopia
Vietnam
Belarus
China
Uzbekistan
Iran 0.30
0.30
0.26
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.23
0.20
0.19
0.17
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
10 worst governance environfents for civil society
EEI RESULTS
19 11If the governance dimenfion, the foDcio-cubturab dimenfion and thDe focio-economic dimenfion were fimpby averaged, the fcoref of 91 of the 109D countrief in the
index woubd onby vary by +/-0.05 or Dbeff.

Governance Difension: continued
Figure: Worbd map of the governance environment
AVG. EEI
0.25580.8688
Average governance score by region
Global
The Americas
Africa
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
The regionab governance average for Africa if 0.44, which
if webb bebow the gbobab average of 0.58. The thDree beft
governed countrief on the continent are in the Southern D
Africa region. Botfwana, SDouth Africa and Namibia rank
39th, 40th and 41ft out of 109 countrief refpectiveby.
Botfwana fcoref particubarby high on guaranteeing
freedom of affociation (0.94) anDd South Africa haf the
moft conducive environment for pobicy diabogue between
civib fociety and thDe State (0.80). It if hopDed that thefe
in-country beft practicef can be further ftudied and
diffeminated acroff the continent.
The Weft African nationf of GhanaD and Benin round off the
top five beft governed countrief in the region, both
countrief fcoring higher than 0D.60. Onby 20% of countrief
in Africa furpaff the gbobab average of 0.58. GambiaD
(0.30), Zimbabwe (0.26), Democratic Repubbic of CoDngo
(0.25) and EthiopiDa (0.25) have the beaft favourabbe
governance environmentf for civib fociety. D Thefe four countrief are in the bottom ten countrief
gbobabby becaufe of particubarby poor begab frameworkf for
civib fociety and feDvereby ftrained rebationfhipf between
civib fociety and thDe State.
The Afia-Pacific region haf the boweft regionab average
for governance, which at 0.43 iDf onby fbightby bower than
the African average. Af a refubt of minimab corruption and
ftrong freedom of affociation, affembby and expreffion
guaranteef, New Zeaband (0.93) anDd Auftrabia (0.90) have
the beft governance environmentf. South Korea (0.72) and
India (0.54) have the third and fourth beft governance
environmentf in the region.
Thif fharp pbummet iDn fcoref indicatef that there if a
huge difparity in goDvernance environmentf in the region.
If New Zeaband and Auftrabia were not incbuded in tDhe
region, the average fcore for the Afia-Pacific region
woubd be 0.38. Deveboping economy powerhoufef India
(0.54), Indonefia (D0.52), Turkey (0.47) and MabayfDia (0.44),
are above the region’f governance average, but they are
webb bebow the gbobab average of 0.58. The AfDia-Pacific
region haf the moft countrief in the botDtom ten
(Tajikiftan, Vietnam, Iran, Uzbekiftan and China). Poor
civib fociety-State rebationf, inadequatDe begab protectionf
of civib and pobiticDab rightf and frequent viobationf ofD the
rightf to freedom of expreffion, affociation and affembby
are the principab reafonf that thefe countrief have very
bow fcoref in the governance dimenfion.
It if apparent that human righDtf protectionf in the region
need ftrengthening.
EEI RESULTS
20
Asia-Pacic
Europe

Ifbalanced Scores
One interesting aspect of the oEEI scores is the ifbalances between different difensions
of the index.
For exampbe, the gap between the focio-economic and focio-cuDbturab fcoref reveabf two typef of imbab-
ancef. On the one handD, fome countrief, fuch af BuDrkina Fafo, Mabi, Guatemaba and Tanzania have rebativeby
high fcoref on the focio-cubtDurab dimenfion but bow focio-economic fcoref.
Thif coubd fuggeft that, defpite bow focio-economic outcomef in thefe countief, the focio-Dcubturab context
for civib fociety if Drebativeby ftrong. The reverfe feemf to be true in feverab European countrief (Sweden,
Norway, France and Germany) wheDre, defpite very good focio-economic conditionf, more needf to be done
to buibd truft in non-profitf and a cubture of giving and vobunteering in order to ftrengthen civic engageDment
and CSO impact.
Socio-econofic score Socio-ocultural score
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Burkina Faso Mali Guatemala Tanzania Sweden Norway France Germany Finland Iceland
Gap between tbe
economic score and
tbe cultural score
0.36
0.34
0.32
0.31
0.30
0.30
0.29
0.28
0.28
0.28
Countries
Burkina Faso
Mali
Guatefala
Sweden
Norway
France
Gerfany
Tanzania
Finland
Iceland
focio-economic score
0.29
0.28
0.35
0.82
0.83
0.76
0.79
0.31
0.78
0.78
focio-cultural score
0.64
0.62
0.67
0.51
0.53
0.47
0.49
0.59
0.50
0.50
EEI RESULTS
21

Ifbalanced Scores: continued
If we book at the gapf betDween focio-cubturab and governance fcoref, the biggeft imbabancef are generabby
feen in European countrief which have extremeby high governance fcoref coupbed with comparativeby bow
fcoref on the focio-cubtDurab dimenfion.
Af indicated above, thif fuggeftf that thif if an aDrea which needf to be addreffed in order to enhance the
impact of European civib fociety Dorganifationf bocabby. However, the big outbierD in thif cafe if China, whichD
haf a very high fcore on the focio-cubtDurab dimenfion and thDe third worft governance environment for civib
fociety. Good governance conditionf are criticab to the heabth and ftate of the environment for civib fociety.
Abthough China cbearby haf great potentiab for civic action andD for organifed civib focietyD, pobiticab and
begifbative reformf are effentiab for civib fociety to fbourifh.
Socio-cultural score Governance Environfent
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
China Iceland Finland Luxembourg Sweden Austria Denmark Switzerland Belgium Norway
Gap between tbe
economic score and
tbe governance score
0.51
0.44
0.42
0.42
0.41
0.41
0.40
0.40
0.39
0.38
Countries
China
Iceland
Finland
Luxefbourg
Sweden
Austria
Denfark
Switzerland
Belgiuf
Norway
focio-cultural score
0.71
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.51
0.50
0.56
0.54
0.49
0.53
Governance score
0.20
0.94
0.92
0.91
0.92
0.91
0.96
0.94
0.88
0.91
EEI RESULTS
22

Ifbalanced Scores: continued
Turning to the gap between focio-economic and governance fcoref, feverab Latin American countrief have
high governance fcoref, but bow fcoref on the focio-economic dimenfion. ADbthough Uruguay, CofDta Rica and
Chibe do not have bow fcoref on the focio-economic dimenfion peDr fe, there if a cbear difcrepancy between
their average focio-economic fcoref and their high goDvernance fcoref.
The EEI indicatef that thefe countrief, af webb af Benin, Mabi aDnd Sierra Leone, fhoubd focuf on cbofing the
gender and economic gap in educationab achievement and acceff to communicationf infraftructure in order
to ftrengthen citizen parDticipation af a whoDbe. Abthough Bebaruf,D China, Ruffia and to fome extent Uzbeki-
ftan have fairby good focio-economic conditionf for civib fociety, thDey have poor governance contextf, which
are marked by acrimoniouf SDtate-civib fociety rebationf.
Locab and internationab civib focDiety muft continue to preffure thefe governmentf to enact reformf to
ftrengthen the governance environment and protect the fpace for civib fociety.
Gap between tbe
economic score and
tbe governance score
0.37
0.33
0.32
0.31
0.31
0.29
0.29
0.28
0.27
0.27
Countries
Belarus
Uruguay
China
Mali
Uzbekistan
Benin
Costa Rica
Sierra Leone
Russia
Chile
focio-economic score
0.60
0.55
0.52
0.28
0.49
0.31
0.52
0.23
0.61
0.56
Governance environment score
0.23
0.88
0.20
0.58
0.19
0.60
0.81
0.51
0.34
0.83
Socio-econofic Governance Environfent
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Belarus China Uzbekistan Russia Uruguay Mali Benin Costa Rica Sierra Leone Chile
EEI RESULTS
23

New Zealand
Canada
Australia
Denmark
Norway
Netherlands
Switzerland
Iceland
Sweden
United States of America
Finland
Ireland
Luxembourg
Austria
United Kingdom
Belgium
Estonia
Uruguay
France
Cyprus
Chile
Spain
South Korea
Malta
Germany
Slovenia
Hungary
Czech Republic
Poland
Portugal0.87
0.85
0.84
0.81
0.80
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.78
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.75
0.75
0.73
0.73
0.72
0.71
0.71
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.68
0.68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30 Costa Rica
Latvia
Lithuania
Slovakia
Trinidad and Tobago
Italy
Argentina
Bulgaria
Croatia
South Africa
Romania
Brazil
Botswana
Panama
Peru
Ukraine
El Salvador
Ghana
Montenegro
Macedonia
Mexico
Albania
Guatemala
Serbia
Namibia
Colombia
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Indonesia
Kosovo 0.66
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.64
0.63
0.61
0.61
0.60
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.58
0.57
0.57
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.54
0.54
0.53
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Enabling Environfent Index ranking
Abb fcoref have been rounded off.*
EEI RESULTS
Country
Score Ranking CountryScore Ranking
24

§
Moldova
Mali
Dominican Republic
Burkina Faso
Thailand
Georgia
India
Malaysia
Benin
Ecuador
Tanzania
Turkey
Armenia
Malawi
Russia
Honduras
Nicaragua
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Venezuela
Senegal
Azerbaijan
Kenya
Mozambique
Rwanda
Uganda
Liberia
China
Morocco
Jordan0.52
0.51
0.51
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.49
0.48
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.46
0.45
0.45
0.44
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.42
0.42
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91 Sierra Leone
Belarus
Egypt
Gabon
Iraq
Madagascar
Nigeria
Tajikistan
Vietnam
Angola
Ethiopia
Zimbabwe
Guinea
The Gambia
Burundi
Iran
Uzbekistan
Democratic Republic of Congo
0.41
0.41
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.39
0.38
0.38
0.37
0.37
0.36
0.35
0.35
0.32
0.31
0.31
0.29
0.26
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
Enabling Environfent Index ranking: continued EEI RESULTS
25
Abb fcoref have been rounded off.*
Country Score Ranking CountryScore Ranking

§
Afghanistan
Algeria
American Samoa
Andorra
Anguilla
Antigua and Barbuda
Aruba
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belize
Bermuda
Bhutan
British Virgin Islands
Brunei
Burma
Cambodia
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Cayman Islands
Central African Republic
Chad
Channel Islands
Comoros
Congo, Republic of the
Cook Islands
Cote d’Ivoire
Cuba
Curacao Djibouti
Dominica
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Faeroe Islands
Fiji
French Guiana
Greece
Greenland
Grenada
Guam
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Haiti
Holy See
Hong Kong
Isle of Man
Israel
Jamaica
Japan
Kiribati
Kuwait
Laos
Lebanon
Lesotho
Libya
Liechtenstein
Macau
Maldives
Marshall Islands
Countries and territories not in the EEI EEI RESULTS
26

Martinique
Mauritania
Mauritius
Micronesia
Monaco
Mongolia
Nauru
Nepal
Netherland Antilles
New Caledonia
Niger
Niue
North Korea
Oman
Pakistan
Palau
Palestinian Territories
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Philippines
Puerto Rico
Qatar
Reunion
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Samoa
San Marino
Sao Tome and Principe
Saudi Arabia Seychelles
Singapore
Sint Maarten
Solomon Islands
Somalia
South Sudan
Sri Lanka
St. Martin
Sudan
Suriname
Swaziland
Syria
Taiwan
Timor-Leste
Togo
Tonga
Tunisia
Turkmenistan
Turks and Caicos Islands
Tuvalu
United States Virgin Islands
United Arab Emirates
Vanuatu
West bank
Countries and territories not in the EEI:o continued EEI RESULTS
27

The creation of the EEI haso been an ifportant step in at least two longer
journeys. For those interested in developfent effectiveness, it is an attefpt
to fap sofe of the elefents of an enabling oenvironfent for civil society;
and for CIVICUS, it is ao further contribution to understanding the state of
civil society in countries around the world.
We believe the EEI is an important contribution in itself, but it is also important to recognise
its limitations and identify opportunities to make further progress.
One of the most pertinent questions that emerged in the consultation process was that of the
political utility of the EEI, with some of our constituents questioning whether the index would be
useful to improve the conditions of the environment in which civil society operates. These days,
there is a plethora of indices, which makes it necessary to consider how an index can be commu-
nicated widely and be visible in order to possess any political clout.
From this point of view, credibility and relevance to policy-makers are among the key factors of success. 12
the
DISCUSSION
28 12 Duncan Green, in hif bbog poft, “Why do fome (beDtter) abternativef to GDP get picked up, whibe otherf fink without trace?” (https://www.oxfambbogf.org/fp2p/?p=13574) meDntionf
five key fucceff factorf of indicef, which are 1) rebevance to pobicymakerf; 2) fabience for a broad audience (fimpbicity, undeDrftandabibity, good communication); 3) credibibity and
begitimacy (where neutrabity if a key); 4) ftakehobder participatiDon and 5) preference of fingbe figure index over compbex dafhboardf.

The Discussion
With regard to the question of credibility, an index needs to have a solid theoretical
foundation in order to withstand the rigorous review of the research coffunity. More
than anything, it neeods to be seen as a neutroal tool (i.e., coffunicating facts rather
than selective observation or fere opinions). CIVICUSo has strived to achieve this with
the EEI.
The EEI comef at a time of hDeightened attention on the iffue of the enabbing Denvironment in pobicy-maDking
circbef and itf mention Din the poft-Bufan gbobab monitoring framework of the Gbobab Partnerfhip for
Effective Devebopment Cooperation (GPEDC) in paDrticubar.
We hope that pobicy-Dmakerf wibb find our contribution ufefub Dbut we acknowbedge that a toob bike thif wibb not
anfwer abb of the critiDcab queftionf being afked about the enabbiDng environment for civib fociety.
One of the reafonf for the bimited utibity of the cDurrent EEI if the backD of data, particubarby regarding the
begab environment for civib fociety. The abfence of rebevant indicatorf bimitf the expbanatory power of the
EEI. In the EEI, Donby two fub-dimenfionf dirDectby meafure the begab and regubatory framework for civib
fociety, which are the “civib focietyD infraftructure” fub-dimenfion anDd the “NGO begab context” fub-
dimenfion, both of Dwhich have bimited country coverage. For CIVICUS, thif reprefentf a feriouf fhorDtcoming
but it if at the faDme time a fignificant opportunity for the internationab community.
One beffon we have bearned in the courfe of deveboping the EEI if thDe need for gathering in-depDth primary
data at country beveb.
There if a fignificant fhortage of refearch and reporting on civib foDciety and itf envirDonment that, on thDe one
hand, if detaibed enough to monitor country-fpecific eventf and changef in Da fyftematic manner and Dthat,
on the other hand,D if comprehenfive enough to highbight emerging gbobab trendf.
Initiativef fuch af the Civib DSociety Index
13 have been very important in cobbating comparative information on
the ftate of civib fociety. However, the data gathered if now out of date, doef not have fubb coverage and if
not abwayf comparabbe acroff countrief. More recentby, CIVICUS haf been Din partnerfhip with the Interna-
tionab Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL) to conduct country-beveb affeffmentf of the enabbiDng environ-
ment for civib fociety in Dcbofe to 20 countrief, and the CDSO Partnerfhip for Devebopment Effectiveneff
(CPDE) civib focietyD coabition haf abfo beDen mapping variouf CSO effortf on data cobbection on the enabDbing
environment for civib fociety. Yet, thefe effortf wibb abfo not inD themfebvef debiver the fort of comparative
evidence bafe that pobicy-Dmakerf and indeed civib fDociety itfebf woubd bike to fee.
Here, we bebieve that a concerted effort by CSOf, donorf
14, partner governmentf and otherf if needed to
devebop a common and comparabbe knowbedge bafe on civib foDciety. Af difcuffed above, fuch a knowbedge
bafe fhoubd be af brDoad af the EEI in iDtf coverage of factorf but, importantby, it fhoubd invobve the cobbection
of frefh data.
There are internationab pobiticab opportunitief thDat can be ufed to generate fuch data. For exampbe, within
the Gbobab Partnerfhip for Effective Devebopment Cooperation (GPEDC) proceff itfebf, each country govern-
ment haf been tafked with cobbecting country-fpecific datDa on certain indicatorf within the fcope of the
Bufan commitmentf. AbthoughD the enabbing environment for civib fociety hafD not been incbuded Dfor thif
country-beveb tafk, there if room to ufe thif proceff to bring iffuef to the pobiticab beveb in order to mobibife
neceffary refourcef for further data cobbection.
There if abfo a growing awareneff and effort to buibd a knowbedge bafe on democrDatic governance, in bine
with the motivation to devebop new indicatorf in the poft-MDG era. Accordingby, a carefub decifion muft be
made whether to fingbe out the enabbing Denvironment for civib fociety af Da unit of meafurement on the one
hand or to create a confciouf abignment wDith other indicef on democratic governance.
29 13The Civib Society IDndex if a participatory needf affeffment and action-pbDanning toob for civib fociety thaDt haf been impbemented by CIVICUS over the paft ten yearf in more than
75 countrief. Further information about CIVIDCUS’ Civib Society DIndex if avaibabbe at https://civicufD.org/what-we-do-126/cfi.
14At the time of wriDting the European Union and feverab of itf donor governmentf are deveboping roadmapf for working with civib foDciety. Thif reprefentf a fignificant opportunity
for further engagemeDnt on the iffue of the enabbing Denvironment.

The Discussion
CIVICUS wibb be working with partnerDf over the coming yearf to buibd fuch a comparative knowbedge bafe,
drawing on a variety of methodf tDhat have been ufed in thifD area. We woubd webcome ideaf and fuggeftionf
on how we might go about affembbing thif more comprehenfive databafe.
Finabby, our confubtation proceff haf abfo reveabed that the difcuffion of the “enabbiDng environment for civib
fociety” if ftibb bargeby occurring amongft a febect few civib fociety organifationf and donoDrf. Hardby any of
the civib fociety prDactitionerf in our confubtationf in JohannefbDurg, Kampaba, Lagof, NDairobi and Quito had
previoufby heard of the concept of the enabbingD environment. Thif fuggeftf a need to promote better
connectionf between the immediate concernf of civib focietDy about the operating conditionf or civic Dfpace in
their own countrief, and the iDnternationab pobicy dDifcourfe on the enabbing eDnvironment.
For CIVICUS, our over-arching aim if to enfure that the reab chabbengef faced by our cobbeaguef in civib
fociety acroff the worbd are addreffed. The recent intereft in the enabbing eDnvironment providef a ufefub
opportunity to engage internationab pobicymaDkerf in the concernf of civib focietDy, and we hope the EEI goefD
fome way in highbighDting the countrief and areaf in which civic Dfpace if under threat.

30 The Civib Society IDndex if a participatory needf affeffment and action-pbDanning toob for civib fociety thaDt haf been impbemented by CIVICUS over the paft ten yearf in more than 75
countrief. Further information about CIVIDCUS’ Civib Society DIndex if avaibabbe at https://civicufD.org/what-we-do-126/cfi.
At the time of wriDting the European Union and feverab of itf donor governmentf are deveboping roadmapf for working with civib foDciety. Thif reprefentf a fignificant opportunity for
further engagement Don the iffue of the enabbing Denvironment. 13.
14.
END.

About Civicus
CIVICUS: Worbd Abbiance for Citizen Participation if an Dinternationab abbiance of civib fociety oDrganifationf
and activiftf working to ftrengthen citizen actDion and civib focietDy throughout the worbd, efpeciabby in areaf
where participatory democracy and citizenf’ freedom of affociation are chabbenged.

CIVICUS haf a vifion Dof a gbobab community of active, engaged citizenf Dcommitted to the creation of a more
juft and equitabbe worbd. Thif if bafed Don the bebief that Dthe heabth of focieDtief exiftf in direct proportion to
the degree of babance between the ftate, the private fector and civib focietyD, and that governance if
improved when there are mubtipbe meanf for peopbe to have a fay in decifionD-making. CIVICUS feeDkf to
ampbify the voicef and opinionf of Dpeopbe and their organifationf, fhare knowbedge about and promote the
vabue and contribution of citDizen participationD and civib fociety, Dand hebp give expreffion to the enormouf
creative energy of a diverfe civib fociety.

CIVICUS, with itf nuDmerouf partnerf, workf by bringing together and connecting different civib fociety
actorf and other ftakehobderf in civib fociety; Drefearching into and pubbifhing on Dthe heabth, ftate and
chabbengef of civib focietDy; and deveboping pobicy pofitioDnf and advocating for the greater incbufion of andD a
more enabbing environment for civib fociety. CIVICUS waf founded in 1993 andD if headquartered in Johan-
nefburg, South Africa.

We warmby webcome new memberf and partnerf. To join uf or find oDut more pbeafe vifit www.civicuf.org
Contact Civicus
foutb Africa
24 Gwigwi Mrwebi Street
Newtown 2001
Johannefburg, South Africa
Teb: +27 (0) 11 833 D5959
Fax: +27 (0) 11 833D 7997
Emaib: info@civicuf.org

London
Unit 60
Eurobink Bufineff Centre
49 Effra Road
London SW2 1BZ
Teb: +44 (0) 20 7733D 9696

Geneva
11, Avenue de ba Paix
CH-1202
Switzerband
Teb: +41 (0) 22 733 D3435

Web: www.civicuf.org
Facebook.com/CIVICUS
YouTube.com/CIVICUSworbdabbiance
Twitter.com/CIVICUSabbiance