EITI Should Do Better to Protect Civic Space: Why and How

The sector has consistently been associated with the highest number of attacks against human rights defenders over the past decade. This is true across many countries, not just those implementing the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). This is not a new concern, but its severity is being heightened in a global context of accelerated permitting and licensing processes for new mineral extraction. In many EITI implementing countries, this trend directly jeopardizes the foundations of the initiative and its conditions for its success. 

The EITI International Board discussed this issue at each of its meetings last year, an unusual signal of the seriousness of the situation. When civic space is constrained, EITI multi-stakeholder groups (MSGs) cannot function effectively, and the initiative risks losing credibility, legitimacy and efficiency. 

Recent examples from across diverse contexts, from Guyana to Kazakhstan, as well as in countries like the United Kingdom, highlight the scale of the challenge. They demonstrate a challenging environment affecting EITI as an initiative built on multi-stakeholder engagement, where civil society is intended to be an equal partner alongside governments and companies. 

In a global political context that is increasingly unfavorable to multistakeholder initiatives, and where attacks on multilateralism are growing, EITI must reaffirm its founding principles. First among these is the importance and value of protecting civic space in the sensitive area of natural resources governance. Consequently, EITI must also strengthen existing tools and identify how they can be used more effectively at both the global and implementing country level—and identify how the initiative could go further. The EITI Global Conference, to be held in the Philippines in 2026, is an opportunity to move from general commitments to specific, time-bound steps on monitoring and responding to civic space risks in EITI implementing countries.

Why protecting civic space is essential for EITI’s success

Civic space sits at the heart of EITI principles (adopted in 2003, see principles #4 and #12) and EITI's overall success. As stated in the introduction of the EITI “Protocol: Participation of civil society” (the civil society protocol): “The participation of civil society is fundamental to achieving the objectives of EITI. (…) is key to ensure that the greater transparency created by the EITI leads to greater accountability”. EITI depends on civic space. Without it, the multistakeholder process cannot function and deliver as intended. (We don’t suggest that joining EITI will improve civic space. Evidence shows that this is most often not the case. Rather, we are talking about the conditions required for EITI to succeed).

Strong and active civil society participation is widely linked to better disclosures, greater uptake of reforms and more impactful EITI implementation. Protecting civic space should be a priority for all EITI stakeholders, both on and off the Board, at global and country levels. In other words: civic space is not just a “civil society issue”. It affects all stakeholders, and EITI cannot function without a robust civil society that is able to freely discuss all aspects of natural resource governance, without fear of reprisal. 

This theory of change has long been reflected in key EITI documents, including the EITI principles and the civil Society protocol. The latest version, adopted in 2015, aims to ensure a full, active and effective civil society engagement in the EITI process. It structures the assessment of civil society participation around five different categories: expression; operation; association; engagement; and access to decision-making. It is also the key reference for the assessment of requirement #1.3 of the EITI Standard 2023 (Civil society engagement). This is not limited to MSGs members only, it applies to all civil society representatives involved in EITI, and includes any civil society “expressing views related to natural resource governance”. Requirement #1.4, related to the establishment of a tri-partite “multi-stakeholder group” (MSG) comprised of government, industry and civil society, complements requirement #1.3.

How EITI can better protect civic space

EITI has numerous existing tools to monitor and protect civic space. It has developed specific guidance on how to mobilize and use these tools at each stage of the EITI life cycle: sign-up (where adherence to requirements #1.3 and #1.4 must be demonstrated); implementation (through the regular Implementation Progress Report prepared by the EITI International Secretariat team and the Secretariat’s ongoing monitoring of EITI countries); validation or targeted assessment (EITI’s quality-control mechanism, where #1.3 and #1.4 are assessed in more detail). When an issue arises, EITI has several response mechanisms available, including “voicing a concern”, a grievance mechanism that can be triggered from the national level outside the Board, which can mobilize the international Board’s Rapid Response Committee.

Depending on the context and the seriousness of challenges to civic space, EITI responses can vary. They could include strengthening proactive engagement, for example: facilitating dialogue between stakeholders or organizing capacity development activities on civic space. In the case of more serious breaches, EITI can respond through public high-level engagement, such as a Board statement, a letter from the Board Chair to head of state (such as the one related to the detention of Gubad Ibadoghlu in Azerbaijan), or even delegation visits by the Board Chair, the International Secretariat or Board Members (like the last one in Guyana in January 2026—though civil society Board representatives could not join the delegation). 

To protect civic space, EITI can also deploy compliance-based measures, including corrective actions from validation results; targeted assessment of requirement #1.3; putting a country under “enhanced scrutiny”; temporary suspension; or full de-listing. The new mid-term monitoring framework, being developed as part of a strengthened approach to monitoring EITI implementation, will provide another tool for monitoring civic space. However, to be effective, it needs to be well connected to corrective actions identified during validation, and the implementation of requirement #1.3(f), which states that the MSG is expected to “monitor adherence” to the civil society protocol. Ultimately, an EITI implementing country can be fully delisted from the EITI for failing to uphold requirement #1.3. 

Despite this array of tools, crucially, they are often not used well due to a lack of knowledge or, more worryingly, lack of political will. Currently, they are also mostly mobilized in reaction to an emerging issue rather than for prevention. EITI stakeholders can and should use them better, to identify patterns and act before civil society participation is undermined. Addressing civic space issues earlier could also help avoid a pattern where, in too many cases, civic space (rightly) becomes a time-consuming issue during validation, focusing attention of the Validation Committee members and of the Board itself (and often becoming highly controversial, as seen in 2022 in the case of the Philippines, where the multi-stakeholder process broke down, and even civil society representatives at the international Board level were ignored). To their credit, the International Secretariat has developed a list of “warning signs”, organized by the five categories of the civil society protocol, to help stakeholders identify when civic space is under threat. This list should be made public and used to build awareness and strengthen capacity among EITI stakeholders in implementing countries.  

Concretely, overcoming these challenges means strengthening capacity so all stakeholders understand the existing EITI tools to protect civic space—when and how they can be used, including who is primarily responsible for surfacing risks. It also means strengthening political will in committees and at the Board level to use the tools available—but also at the International Secretariat, which advises and guides EITI responses. There is a growing perception among civil society that the International Secretariat has contradictory approaches to civic space internally and at times values political expediency over civic space protection. The Secretariat could more strongly and reliably ensure the protection of civic space across EITI processes, from flagging concerns during regular country monitoring to conducting special missions to investigate breaches of the civil society protocol. Responses need to be context-specific and based on local civil society’s preferred approach: in some cases, public condemnation may be more efficient, while in others, more discrete actions can be more effective. Stakeholders also need to be strategic about when to mobilize the Board. But equally, some level of automatic response (or quasi automatic responses) should be clearly defined and triggered when red flags arise, for both efficiency and continuity, to avoid EITI being perceived as arbitrary or biased in how it responds to civic space concerns.

In any case, as civil society representatives on the EITI Board have advocated over the past year, a first obvious step should be to make monitoring civic space mandatory for MSGs: meaning revising EITI requirement #1.3(f) to make it a must, not a nice-to-have. Accordingly, at the country level, each MSG meeting (or minimum one per quarter, if the MSG meets more often) should include an agenda item to take stock of civic space. In this vein, annual EITI reports produced by EITI countries should document these discussions and systematically assess the current civic space context. The EITI Secretariat’s regular implementation progress reports should always include updates on civic space. Any stakeholder should flag issues to the Board as they arise, civil society representatives on the Board especially should be proactive in flagging civic space issues that they hear about through their role. To support this, civil society at the country level must document civic space challenges they face more regularly and rigorously, and communicate them as early as possible.  For that, they can use self-assessment tools, such as validation templates. Where civic space is too constrained, capacity and willingness to report may be very limited, and support from external actors (who don’t face the same risks) may be needed: civil society cross-border coordination, collaboration and solidarity is key here. 

Beyond a better understanding, knowledge and use of existing EITI tools to protect civic space, there is a need—and an opportunity—to think further about how EITI can improve its role in safeguarding civic space. Some suggestions, from the International Secretariat and other stakeholders, are already under discussion. They focus on strengthening political channels, regional actions and narratives. The latter in particular includes better documenting how civil society has actively contributed to EITI successes in some countries, to reinforce the narrative that protected civic space underpins EITI success. 

Concrete examples of what different stakeholders can do, on their own or collectively, have already been presented to the EITI Board at its November 2025 Board meeting. Some examples: 

• Governments can embed civic freedoms in extractive sector laws, support open public debate, or support civil society engagement with public funding. 
• Companies can fund or co-develop open data tools, sponsor CSO/journalist training, or collaborate through industry associations or MSGs to respond to civic space threats collectively. 
• Civil society can seek to balance historical memory with new voices on MSGs, work closely with media to increase their awareness of extractive sector governance issues, or include the monitoring of civic space in project applications. 
• Supporting countries can make civic space part of governance conditionality, fund open-data and transparency initiatives, or provide flexible multi-year support to local CSOs.

Other options for the Board and MSGs have also been discussed. These ideas should also be made public so that they can inspire action across EITI stakeholders at both global and country levels.

This renewed commitment from all stakeholders to protect civic space should also be reflected in each constituency guidelines, especially those of the implementing countries and the companies. In the near future, the Company Expectations should be amended accordingly (for example by including a requirement for supporting companies to have a zero tolerance policy on attacks against human rights defenders where they operate). EITI should also strengthen expectations for Governments to demonstrate how they protect civic space to enable successful implementation of the initiative. These steps would help strongly position EITI for the future as an initiative that values and therefore commits to protecting civic space as one of its key dimensions and conditions for success. 

A call for stronger implementation of existing tools, further commitments and action

In summary, EITI already has solid tools and mechanisms to support civic space in EITI implementing countries. These can and should be better known, used more proactively and implemented more efficiently.  For this, EITI must be able to rely on stronger leadership from all stakeholders and a greater political will. The Manila Global Conference is a key moment to demonstrate renewed commitments from EITI stakeholders to protect civic space. The Board has discussed how to improve EITI’s safeguarding of civic space for a year—now is the time for action. 

Ahead of the revision of the EITI Standard—expected by 2028, with a revision process starting mid-2026—EITI stakeholders can already go further, individually or collectively, through dedicated statements or announcements of concrete actions (see examples in the previous section). These steps would demonstrate their commitment to protecting civic space in EITI implementing countries. Even before it is formally included in the future EITI Standard, it is clear that, in practice, Requirement 1.3(f) should be mandatory. This would represent an initial step showing that the civic space issue is indeed considered fundamental by all EITI stakeholders. 

If the EITI is to remain credible in an era of democratic backsliding and resource nationalism, it must demonstrate that civic space is non-negotiable. The Manila Global Conference should not simply reaffirm principles; it should produce concrete and measurable commitments. The initiative can continue to serve as a platform where transparency translates into accountability and fulfils its mandate, if—and only if—civic space is protected.