A/HRC/29/25 access to environmental information by the public.27 He emphasizes that concerned community groups should not be subjected to unreasonable requirements, such as minimum membership numbers, in order for their concerns to be heard and taken on board. A reasonable demonstration of interest in the impact of the exploitation activities should be sufficient for associations and groups to present their views in consultation procedures. 61. Similarly, a group’s formal registration or recognition by authorities should not be required in order for associations to challenge decision-making processes related to environmental issues or natural resource exploitation. Recognition should not confer advantages that would not be available to unregistered or unrecognized groups. In particular, recognition or non-recognition should not be used as a basis for authorizing or restricting scrutiny by associations of the natural resource exploitation industry. Associations should be free to engage in monitoring activities and to have access to information without undue interference by authorities, and be empowered with the ability to influence decision making processes. 62. Governments also place restrictions on access to foreign funding to curtail the activities of associations engaged in environmental protection work, which often focuses on natural resource exploitation activities. In India, for example, the Government in 2014 blocked funding from foreign sources to Greenpeace India, although the High Court ultimately ordered the release of funds.28 In some States where the environment for fundraising by civil society organizations is generally restrictive, there have been efforts to limit restrictions on access to funding for groups working specifically on natural resource exploitation. The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative has called on the Government of Azerbaijan, for example, to ensure that civil society representatives involved in the Initiative are able to access their bank accounts and can register new grants.29 63. Some States may also target members of civil society based on their foreign citizenship. In 2015, the Government of Cambodia, for example, refused to renew the residence permit of a Spanish environmental activist who was working with the local organization Mother Nature to halt a controversial hydroelectric project in the Areng valley.30 The activist was later deported. The Special Rapporteur emphasizes that nationality is not a proper basis for limiting the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association (see A/HRC/26/29, para. 25). 64. Individual human rights defenders and associations may also be subject to attacks, stigmatization, intimidation, surveillance, travel bans, and risk the suspension of their activities or even dissolution of the organization when they speak out against natural resource exploitation. The organization Publish What You Pay Uganda reported, for example, that they had had their equipment confiscated for nearly two months after trying to screen a documentary on lessons that could be learned from other resource-rich countries.31 27 28 29 30 31 18 Responses to questionnaire. Greenpeace, “Massive win for voices of dissent & democracy”, 12 March 2015. Available from www.greenpeace.org/india/en/news/Feature-Stories/Massive-win-for-voices-of-dissent--democracy/. Minutes of 28th EITI Board Meeting, annex A, p. 25. Available from https://eiti.org/files/BP/Minutes-from-the-28th-EITI-Board-meeting-Myanmar_Final.pdf. Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defence of Human Rights (Licadho), “Civil Society Groups Condemn Use of Visa Denial to Curb Activism”. Available from www.licadhocambodia.org/pressrelease.php?perm=373. East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project “Only the brave talk about oil: Human rights defenders and the resource extraction industries in Uganda and Tanzania”, November 2014,