In the Brussels scandal of the socialist Frans Timmermans, former Vice-President of the European Commission, indirect links can be found with Slovenian non-governmental organisations. So, was “dirty” money also poured into the campaign against nuclear energy and the construction of the second reactor of the Krško Nuclear Power Plant?
Brussels is abuzz with information about the subsidisation of environmental NGOs in order to lobby for green policies. The fact that the European Commission has for years been subsidising environmental organisations lobbying for the “green” plans of former European Commissioner Frans Timmermans has been revealed in secret contracts obtained by the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf. Representatives of the European People’s Party (EPP) have raised concerns about the use of public funds for campaigns that go against the interests of the European Union. While some insist that this is only to put pressure on environmental activists, it should be noted that even Budget Commissioner Piotr Serafin has admitted that part of the funding for the 5.4-billion-euro LIFE environmental programme was inappropriate.
Commissioner admits that part of the funding was inappropriate
On Wednesday evening, Commissioner Serafin insisted that the European Commission was merely following the letter of European law when it allocated public funds to support environmental NGOs. “The Commission remains committed to supporting organisations that contribute to a vibrant and diverse civil society in line with the LIFE Regulation,” he said, but admitted that mistakes had been made. “I have to admit that it was inappropriate for some services in the European Commission to make deals that oblige NGOs to lobby MEPs in particular,” he stressed. He did not cite specific examples, nor did the European Commission’s spokespersons when subsequently asked about it by Euronews. He added that officials had been instructed last year to take “urgent measures such as amending existing contractual arrangements.” Serafin pointed out that this had remedied the problems.
A Member of the European Parliament from Germany, Monika Hohlmeier, who is the Vice-Chair of the Committee on Budgets and is credited with triggering the recent heated debate, stressed that this particular case is a “misuse of EU funds”, pointing out that the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Environment (DG ENVI) has given money to NGOs to lobby against farmers and other European Commission policies. In a written statement to the aforementioned media outlet, MEP Hohlmeier said that her concerns were raised after reviewing some 30 funding contracts from 2022 and 2023 as part of the annual parliamentary scrutiny of EU budget spending. According to her, some of the contracts required NGOs to organise mass protests, send out mass mailings and put pressure on legislators ahead of key votes.
She pointed out that NGOs had also used the funds to lobby on behalf of the European Commission’s Directorate-General against EU free trade agreements with other countries, such as the members of the Mercosur bloc, despite the fact that the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has been a prominent advocate of deeper trade relations with the bloc, which includes Brazil and Argentina. Although the MEP agrees that every NGO has the right to have its own political position and to express it publicly, she does not feel it is right that taxpayers’ money should be used to organise and implement non-transparent and hidden lobbying structures.
“Advocacy remains perfectly acceptable, of course, but it should be carried out in a much less targeted way and not directly and specifically against members of the European institutions,” Commission spokesman Balazs Ujvari said on Thursday. Patrick ten Brink, Secretary General of the European Environment Bureau (EEB), which received 10 percent of LIFE funding last year, called for “an honest conversation about who is lobbying whom” in Brussels.
LIFE foresees an allocation of 5.4 billion euros between 2021 and 2027
Last November, the media outlet Politico ran a story on the letters sent out by the European Climate, Environment and Infrastructure Agency (CINEA) to NGOs regarding the receipt of grants from the EU’s environmental fund, known as LIFE, which foresaw the allocation of 5.4 billion euros between 2021 and 2027. They highlighted the 2024 LIFE beneficiaries (the list is available at the following link: https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2024-10/LIFE%20operating%20grants%20-%20organisations%20funded%20in%202024.pdf), such as ClientEarth, WWF, Friends of the Earth, Zero Waste Europe, Institute for European Environmental Policy, and the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), whose mission is to protect and improve the environment in Europe and beyond, and to promote knowledge and understanding of EU environmental policy and sustainable development among the general public in the EU.
When the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf reported in relation to the scandal that environmental groups had to justify their actions, it was the EEB that was singled out. It said that it had to provide at least 16 examples showing that the European Parliament had improved the ambition of legislation on environmental policies as a result of their lobbying. “The controversial nature restoration law initiated by former European Commissioner Timmermans also had to be ‘promoted’ by this umbrella organisation of 185 environmental groups,” the newspaper added, according to the Brussels Signal.
Which Slovenian organisations are involved?
The European Environmental Bureau (EEB), which received 700,000 euros from the LIFE Fund last year, is an alliance of more than 150 environmental organisations based in EU Member States, accession countries, and some neighbouring countries. A closer look at the membership shows that among the full members of the EEB is the Dark Sky Slovenia association (Društvo Temno nebo Slovenija), which, according to its official website, aims to “draw the attention of the professional and general public to the problem of light pollution and its negative impact on astronomical observations, human health and the environment in general.”
“This is yet another source of environmental pollution that we have been experiencing since the huge increase in light emissions from artificial sources, mainly from large urban areas,” the association points out in relation to light pollution. The Society’s aim is not “to keep Slovenia in the dark at night”. “We just want better lighting,” they say. More than ten years ago, as part of the LIFE+ project – Life at Night, and in cooperation with the Slovenian Commission for UNESCO, they produced a brochure with recommendations for lighting churches, as can be seen on their website.
Umanotera (The Slovenian Foundation for Sustainable Development) is also a member of the EEB and is “a professional organisation that seeks to promote sustainable development in national policies and to strike a balance between people and the environment by monitoring new trends,” according to its official website. Among other things, it points out that their work is guided by “the principles of independence from politics and capital interests, quality of work, honesty, sincerity and directness”. The association has produced publications in the framework of the LIFE project. Three years ago, they published an updated document entitled ‘The political-legislative background to climate change mitigation’ and, even earlier, ‘The physical background to climate change’. An exhibition entitled ‘On the Hot Side of the Alps’ has also been produced by them.
The Legal Centre for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment – PIC can also be found on the list of associate members of the EEB. In this case, it is “an NGO in the field of legal protection of the environment and knowledge of procedures for intervening in our environment.” Its mission, according to its official website, is “to assist individuals and vulnerable groups in the protection of their fundamental rights and to strengthen the influence of NGOs in the field of environmental protection and spatial planning through legal assistance, advocacy and legal analysis.”
It is, of course, not possible to claim at this point that the funding of any of the Slovenian NGOs that are part of the EEB has been problematic, as it has not been disclosed in which specific cases irregularities have occurred. In a response on the EEB’s official website, EEB Secretary-General Patrick ten Brink insists that this case is an attempt to fabricate a fake scandal. “ NGOs are not funded by the European Commission to lobby the European Parliament or other EU institutions upon their instructions or on their behalf,” he stressed, warning that “actions to undermine civil society jeopardise the very fabric of European democracy at a time when we all should work together to protect it, invest in its resilience, and weather the growing disinformation storm seeking to erode western democracies.” However, the recent admission by the Budget Commissioner that the overall funding was not exactly appropriate is, for some, more than telling.
S. K.
