Freedom of association

Participants agreed that the legal framework for protecting freedom of association and freedom of assembly was strong in Portugal, and that these rights did not suffer from systemic or serious violations or political pressure. The Portuguese society still benefited from the rights granted after the fall of the dictatorship in 1974. However, participants argued that the legal framework dating from that period needed to be updated, in particular to better protect the identity of people exercising their freedom of association and of assembly. To support this argument, participants brought up the 2021 incident in which the municipality of Lisbon shared demonstrators' personal data with the Russian Embassy.

Some participants explained that the CSO fabric in Portugal relied heavily on volunteering, which was weakened but also revitalised in various ways by the pandemic. People tended to show a genuine willingness to volunteer, but in more sporadic ways, and in response to urgent situations. As in other countries, participants felt that the space for civil society was narrowing. CSOs notably suffered from the gradual polarisation of public opinion and from the rise of hate speech, which led to cases of 3/7 threats against CSO staff members working in areas related to migration or the integration of people with foreign origins, or members of the Roma community. Participants also believed that the interference of some political parties in the CSO environment was a negative development.

According to participants, CSOs depended mostly on funding from the public sector at state and EU levels. These funds were not particularly orientated towards advocacy or monitoring activities. The scarcity and centralisation of resources tended to lead to competition rather than collaboration among CSOs, at least in the human rights field. On a positive note, efforts to do away with the red-tape surrounding setting-up CSOs were welcomed. The Portuguese authorities presented the various schemes available for civil society funding and considered them substantial, particularly in areas related to gender equality, the integration of migrants, the rights of persons with disabilities, the rights of LGBTIQ people, and other discriminations.

Participants believed that CSO involvement in decision-making still needed to be stepped up despite the real recent efforts by the authorities, which were also recognised. According to participants, experience showed that whether or not CSOs were consulted mostly depended on the goodwill of the authorities in power at a given time, or on that of specific institutions. Consultations were too often made simply to tick boxes, and not with the aim to genuinely involve CSOs in political dialogue. It was acknowledged that CSOs had been involved in a number of committees (on discrimination, gender equality, human rights, etc), however their involvement was viewed as a mere formality, lacking the possibility for meaningful influence on outcomes. One participant believed that steps should be taken to improve the continuity of exchanges between authorities and CSOs, and that these exchanges should be better organised to avoid last-minute dealings that would result in outcomes of poor quality. The Portuguese authorities mentioned the existence of numerous committees opened to civil society contribution, and also that of a public website to ensure civil society and citizen consultations on draft legislations. Citizens were also entitled a right of initiative in certain legislative areas. Participants pointed out that there lacked a specific institution to channel the voice of civil society. On that point, the Portuguese authorities indicated that the Economic and Social Council (CES) was not restricted to social partners and also integrated various civil society interests. Participants also regretted the scarcity of lasting self-organised platforms among CSOs themselves, and the rare representation of CSOs in the media. In the absence of a regulation on lobbying and advocacy activities, it was felt that the ability to influence policy-making mostly depended on power and financial capacities. One participant also explained that the promoters of projects were often also those paying for compulsory environmental impact assessments. This situation prevented a genuine focus on the general interest, and marginalised the views of independent CSOs in such impact assessments.