Latest news with #LIFEProgramme
Euractiv
16-07-2025
- Business
- Euractiv
Green groups see EU budget bill as death knell for environment funding
While the European Commission has proposed a substantial increase in the size of the bloc's central budget from 2028, green groups have accused the EU executive of lowering the priority of environmental action and warn civil society voices could be excluded from the policy making process. As expected, the European Commission has proposed axing the LIFE Programme, the EU's only stand-alone funding mechanism for environmental action. The 2028-34 budget bill also squeezes broader funding for climate and biodiversity policy goals. But the EU executive put a positive spin on its move to streamline green funding with the massively increased €2 trillion budget. 'We will have a climate and biodiversity spending target, so mainstreaming, of 35% for the new MFF," European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told reporters on Wednesday, referring to the EU's next multiannual financial framework. "This amounts to around €700 billion.' This substantial sum of money would have to be spent in ways that are compatible with the EU goal of reaching net-zero emissions by mid-century, and reversing biodiversity loss. Nevertheless, it is lower than the combined €658 billion ring-fenced for climate and €113 billion for biodiversity in the current budget. From 2028, central budget funding for climate and environment purposes will be split in two separate pillars: the 'clean transition and industrial decarbonisation' envelope of the €410 billion European Competitiveness Fund (ECF), and some €1 trillion spread across different priorities such as economy, agriculture, rural prosperity and security. 'Our proposal for the next MFF shows that we remain strongly committed to environmental priorities," Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall said. "Water, circularity, nature and bioeconomy are prominent parts of the new competitiveness fund and the national plans." Less money for nature However some fear this new approach risks decreasing overall funding for nature and biodiversity. 'The loss of LIFE as we know it in the new MFF is not simplification – it's sabotage," said Patrick ten Brink, secretary general of the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), an NGO umbrella group. "The LIFE Programme exists for a reason. It delivers targeted, cost-effective results for nature, climate and public health.' Ester Asin, director of the WWF European Policy Office warned the 35% global target could become little more than a PR exercise. "By grouping all environmental spending under a single target, there is a real danger that biodiversity will be sidelined in favour of industrial priorities that may be presented as green investments," she said. Others warned the proposed budget reform could actually widen a gap in funding for nature restoration that is currently estimated to be €19 billion annually. 'We are deeply concerned by the lack of dedicated biodiversity funding, as the LIFE funding is now suggested to be merged with other programmes," said Andras Krolopp, biodiversity policy lead at The Nature Conservancy. The concerns of civil society groups were also echoed by progressive voices in the European Parliament. 'It is irresponsible and short-sighted for this proposal to end the LIFE programme and leave out funding for biodiversity,' said Green MEP Rasmus Nordqvist, one of the negotiators of the MFF in the Parliament's budget committee. The cancellation of the LIFE Programme also represents an existential threat to numerous environmental NGOs who currently share €15 million in direct grants to cover part of their operational expenses. The Commission says such support could in future be disbursed via national programmes, but it is unclear for now how the funds would be allocated, and whether campaign groups will be able to meet unspecified criteria related to competitiveness or national policy objectives. '[By] repealing LIFE, core funding for environmental NGOs could disappear, leaving civil society under-resourced to support necessary implementation, enforcement, and public engagement," the EEB warned. 'The MFF needs to enable civil society actors to participate effectively in EU-level policymaking," MEP Nordqvist said. "It is essential to safeguard the right of everyone to meaningful participation in decision-making processes and the full cycle of implementation of the EU budget." (rh, aw)
Euronews
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Euronews
Battle over NGO financing heats up again in Brussels
Three right-wing political groups at the European Parliament are attempting for a second time to establish an investigative inquiry committee into NGO financing by the European Commission, as Transparency International alleges an MEP-orchestrated smear campaign against civil society and is launching a complaint about leaks. German newspaper Welt Am Sonntag claimed last week that the EU executive had allegedly secretly paid environmental NGOs up to €700,000 to promote the bloc's climate policy. The Commission denied the allegationsof secret payments and a spokesperson told Euronews that the executive exercises a high degree of transparency when it comes to providing funding to NGOs. "The latest revelations published by the German press about murky ties between the European Commission and environmental NGOs make the establishment of a parliamentary committee of inquiry into the so-called 'Green Gate' scandal ever more urgent," European Conservatives and Reformists MEP Carlo Fidanza said in a press release, adding: "This committee, which has been requested by the ECR Group and backed by 200 MEPs from various political families, is essential." Hungarian Patriots MEP Csaba Dömötör told Euronews he believes more transparency is needed in relation to NGO contracts with the European Commission. "We see that they finance a blindly ideologically driven agenda from taxpayers' money, for which the price and the burden will be paid by taxpayers," Dömötör said, adding: "The Commission says those contracts are not secret. We will see, as we will launch targeted information requests to know the content of those lobbying contracts. The European Commission will have its chance to open up and to prove that the democratic values that they request from member states are also valid for themselves." The Welt allegations first surfaced in February, and in April a parliamentary committee voted down a raft of amendments from right-wing lawmakers seeking to incorporate sharp criticism of EU funding for non-governmental organisations into the discharge of the bloc's 2023 budget. As well as rejecting a joint proposal by Fidesz and France's Rassemblement National to condemn an 'enormous EU-NGO propaganda complex', the committee at that time also rejected a slew of amendments tabled by conservative European People's Party (EPP) lawmaker Monika Hohlmeier. Among these was a call for the EU Court of Auditors (ECA) to conduct a probe specifically into the LIFE Programme, the bloc's funding instrument for environmental projects on the ground, a small portion of which supports campaign groups through operating grants. The Conference of the Presidents at the European Parliament will now decide on the establishment of the committee next week in Strasbourg. Another two right-wing groups, Patriots for Europe and Europe of Sovereign Nations, also lined up in support of the initiative. A source from ESN told Euronews, the group will support any inquiry into the misuse of public funds. "The Commission is paying activists to shape public opinion – this is not neutral governance, but orchestrated democracy." The position of the European People's Party group is not clear-cut, since not all MEPs share Hohlmeier's position. Meanwhile, Transparency International EU director Nick Aiossa told Euronews that the claims of NGO's shadow-lobbying for the Commission have already been debunked. "These are already debunked stories that were circulated in February," said Aiossa, adding: "I simply don't understand why the German press would jump on this, unless, of course, it has a more political agenda behind it from the people who are leaking the contracts." He said that Commission funding of civil society in order to participate in public debate is a good thing, and that ample transparency measures already exist. Back in April, Transparency International stood up against the idea of an inquiry committee in an open letter. "These coordinated attacks that we've seen from this House over the last six months have three very clear objectives. They're meant to discredit NGOs. They're meant to distract NGOs to try and counter these false narratives in the press but ultimately, unfortunately, the ultimate objective is to defund NGOs. And we are about to see this play out in the new budget negotiations that are going to take place over the next several years," Aiossa added. He said that a small circle of right-wing MEPs is responsible for leaking sensitive data to the press, and that Transparency would be filing a legal complaint on the issue. "We've had a handful of MEPs have access to a limited amount of confidential documents that they are using to leak to journalists as part of a smear campaign against NGOs. There are rules in place in how these documents must be handled because they are confidential, and there's no accountability in this House on these leaks. And so I intend to submit a formal complaint to both the Commission as well as the president of the Parliament." At the heart of the latest media revelations on EU funding for environmental NGOs are the LIFE operating grants. These are part of the EU's LIFE programme, a €5.4 billion budget (2021–2027) aimed at financing projects related to green innovation, circular economy, energy efficiency, nature conservation, and pollution reduction. Around €15.6 million of this is allocated to environmental NGOs via operating grants and under this scheme, individual organisations may receive up to €700,000 annually. Grants are awarded through open calls with clear eligibility criteria and NGOs are evaluated not by the Commission directly but by agencies such as, in the case of LIFE , the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency (CINEA). Advocacy through lobbying is permitted but not required or directed under the grants. Each grant includes the disclaimer that 'views and opinions expressed' by NGOs 'do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union'. Grant conditions are public, and there is no requirement that applicants align their objectives with Commission interests to receive funding. In short: NGOs retain full autonomy over how they use the money, within legal and contractual boundaries. They are subject to transparency rules, must uphold EU values, and are routinely audited. If they fail to implement their work programmes, funding can be withdrawn. While much of the oversight relies on self-reporting – one of the main pitfalls of the system – the Commission is enhancing its risk-based verification following advice from the European Court of Auditors. In April 2025, the EU auditors labelled the Commission's funding process as 'opaque' and warned of potential reputational risks. However, it found no evidence during a year-long probe of any wrongdoing by either NGOs or European Commission officials. As a result, the Commission last year issued new guidance to prevent EU funding from being used for direct lobbying of EU institutions following these concerns. With additional reporting by Gerardo Fortuna German BSH Domestic Appliances group, which owns the Siemens and Bosch brands, has announced the forthcoming closure of a factory in Esquíroz in the north of Spain. More than 650 local jobs are likely to be lost, and production could be relocated to Poland or Turkey. "The situation is really very worrying. This was a company that had proved to be sustainable, a company that had a product that provided services to the rest of Europe and also to Spain, because 80% of the products that came out of this company were then marketed in Spain," Spanish MEP Estrella Galán said. "And now the company has decided to close because of relocation," she added. This is not an isolated case. Relocations are also under way at Audi, Volkswagen and ArcelorMittal. Some MEPs would like the European Parliament to take action to combat deindustrialisation and support the re-industrialisation of Europe, at a time when geopolitical uncertainties are undermining businesses. "We have political instability, we have high energy prices, we have economic uncertainty, we have Donald Trump's tariff war," Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez, another Spanish MEP for Renew Europe, told Euronews. "In this case, we have a lack of strategic autonomy. These companies are looking for lower labour costs, they are looking for access to raw materials", Agirregoitia Martínez explained. She recommends simplifying the regulatory and tax framework to support production, innovation and competitiveness in Europe. For her part, Galán is calling for the 25-year-old European directive on collective redundancies to be updated to bring it into line with the "new realities of the labour market". "Within the European Union, we cannot compete between states on the basis of the wage levels that exist in one member state or another," she told Euronews. "It is therefore necessary to reform this directive on collective redundancies and prevent social dumping from being a threat to all workers in the European Union", she adds. Between 2018 and 2020, 72% of French companies that relocated did so in Europe, according to the French national statistics institute (INSEE).
Euronews
08-04-2025
- Politics
- Euronews
MEPs reject renewed attacks on NGO funding in EU budget review
ADVERTISEMENT The European Parliament's budgetary control committee has provisionally signed off on the EU's 2023 budget, largely voting down attempts by right-wing law makers to include harsh criticism of funding for non-governmental organisations in its final report. As well as rejecting a joint proposal by members of Hungary's ruling Fidesz party and France's Rassemblement National to condemn an 'enormous EU-NGO propaganda complex', the committee rejected a slew of amendments tabled by conservative European People's Party (EPP) lawmaker Monika Hohlmeier. Among them was a call for the EU Court of Auditors (ECA) to conduct a probe specifically into the LIFE Programme, the bloc's funding instrument for environmental projects on the ground, a small portion of which supports campaign groups through operating grants. Last week saw the parliament's environment committee reject a motion calling on the European Commission to halt such funding, after a handful of EPP lawmakers broke with the party line. Related MEPs reject call to halt funding for environmental NGOs The Luxembourg-based audit office yesterday censured the European Commission for the lack of transparency over its support for NGOs, but found no evidence of wrongdoing in the sample of funding agreements it examined during the year-long investigation. Niclas Herbst, who chairs the budgetary control committee and drafted its report into the EU's 2023 finances, said the ECA had confirmed its criticism of NGO funding. 'There is a lack of transparency and control as to whether the NGOs in question share our EU values at all. There is still no complete overview of EU funding to NGOs,' said Herbst, who is also an EPP member. For Carlotta Besozzi, director of the umbrella group Civil Society Europe, welcomed the 'more objective' language adopted by the committee. 'We are pleased to see that much of the language that suggested unfounded problems with the funding of NGOs has been removed,' she said. But green groups are not out of the woods yet, according to Patrizia Heidegger, the director general of the European Environmental Bureau, which represents a huge network of NGOs in Brussels, with the eurosceptic ECR group pushing for the parliament to establish a fully-fledged committee of inquiry into the funding issue. Related Commission denies singling out NGOs in green funding row 'An inquiry committee in the parliament is usually set up to investigate a real scandal such as LuxLeaks , massive fraud, corruption and other processes – not to continue a witch hunt against civil society organizations,' Heidegger said. The presidents of the various political groups in the European Parliament will have to decide in a weighted vote whether or not to go ahead with this initiative – with the decision effectively resting in the hands of the EPP, the largest group in the assembly.
Euronews
03-04-2025
- Politics
- Euronews
Commission denies singling out NGOs in green funding row
ADVERTISEMENT After a vote during a fractious meeting of the European Parliament's environment committee, the row over the funding of non-governmental organisations in the EU policy bubble is rolling on, with a statement from the EU executive provoking criticism that it was bending to pressure from the political right. The conservative European People's Party (EPP) and allies further to the right lost by one vote on Monday evening a motion objecting to the EU executive's decision on funding NGOs through the LIFE Programme for the period 2025 to 2027. In a subsequent statement, the Commission noted that funding for NGOs was 'explicitly provided for in the LIFE Regulation' and that it remained 'fully committed to ensuring a healthy and vibrant civil society'. However, it also stated some work programmes attached to grant agreements 'contained specific advocacy actions and undue lobbying activities'. The EPP seized on the latter statement, with the co-sponsor of the censure motion Sander Smit saying the Commission had 'finally admitted' wrongdoing – although Budget Commissioner Piotr Serafin did just that in the parliament in January, when he acknowledged use of EU funds to lobby MEPs was inappropriate. Related Use of EU funds to lobby MEPs was 'inappropriate', commissioner says Smit pointed to the EU executive's fresh commitment to preclude 'lobbying that targets specific policies or MEPs' from grant agreements, prevent conflicts of interest and review transparency. 'This is good news for EU taxpayers, for the integrity and balance of EU Institutions and for the separation of powers,' he said. 'It is also good news for those parts of civil society organisations that work transparently and fairly,' the Dutch lawmaker added. The European Environmental Bureau, among the largest green groups operating in Brussels, welcomed the Commission's acknowledgment of the 'essential role' of NGOs, but pointed to 'serious questions' the process had raised around 'blackmailing and backdoor influencing by some political groups'. Commission denies 'singling out' NGOs Faustine Bas-Defossez, the group's policy director, said public funding enabled NGOs to work in the public interest and represent voices that would otherwise go unheard by policy makers. 'If that's considered 'undue lobbying', then we must seriously question what those standards mean for the future of democratic accountability in Europe,' she said. The Socialists & Democrats group, second in size only to the EPP, slammed what it sees as submission to pressure from the right and demanded that environment commissioner Jessika Roswall explain why green groups are being 'singled out'. 'This politically motivated move risks legitimising right-wing attacks to silence civil society,' the S&D said on social media. 'We won't accept this.' Asked by Euronews to respond to this criticism, a spokesperson for the EU executive, Balazs Ujvari, said guidance issued last May applied to all beneficiaries of funding through the LIFE Programme, which has a budget of €5.43 billion for the period 2021-2027, of which NGOs shared about €15 million last year, with individual grants capped at €700,000. Private companies, local authorities and research foundations also receive LIFE funding, but the issues that prompted the EU executive to take action had arisen in relation to NGOs 'according to our own research and assessment', Ujvari said. 'We don't want to be seen as obliging…non-governmental organisations to lobby concrete members of the European Parliament,' the Commission official said. 'This is the main consideration for us.' Eurosceptics demand a parliamentary inquiry If the EPP's latest statement seemed somewhat conciliatory – they 'strongly support the LIFE programme and recognise the very important role of NGOs', the group's environment policy coordinator Peter Liese said – the same cannot be said for the co-sponsor of the failed parliamentary motion, the eurosceptic ECR group. Related MEPs reject call to halt funding for environmental NGOs On the morning after the vote, co-chair Nicola Procaccini told reporters in Strasbourg that the ECR wanted to set up a parliamentary committee of inquiry into what they are characterising as a full-blown corruption scandal. ADVERTISEMENT 'We have successfully gathered the required number of signatures to initiate the procedure for a formal committee of inquiry about the so-called Timmermans-gate,' Procaccini said, adding that the proposal would be put forward at the next meeting of parliamentary group presidents, who set the parliamentary agenda. However, it appears far from likely that the initiative will succeed. The ECR and its allies further to the right would need the support of the EPP, so the position of group leader Manfred Weber at the meeting on Thursday morning (3 April) will be decisive. An official contacted by Euronews said the group had not formally discussed the subject. 'However, the EPP generally does not support the multiplication of special parliamentary committees, especially when existing committees, such as CONT, are already fully capable of addressing the issue.' The official was referring to the parliament's committee on budgetary control, which is due to adopt on 7 April its report on the discharge of the Commission's 2023 budget. ADVERTISEMENT Greens co-chair Terry Reintke told Euronews that NGOs play an "essential role in balancing the interests of business in European legislation" and it "goes without saying that EU funds must be spent according to the rules", but she questioned the ECR's motives. "Following the script of Donald Trump and Viktor Orbán, ECR wants to silence NGOs and civil society, and we call on EPP members to stick with the democratic centre," the German lawmaker said. The EU Court of Auditors is due to present next week an eagerly awaited report into NGO funding that, although it will not specifically target groups operating primarily in the Brussels policy making bubble, will no doubt shine a light on the EU executive's monitoring and transparency practices.
Euronews
01-04-2025
- Politics
- Euronews
MEPs reject call to halt funding for environmental NGOs
ADVERTISEMENT The European People's Party (EPP) group's campaign to block EU financial support for non-profit environmental groups has taken a blow after a trio of conservative lawmakers broke ranks and voted down a motion to censure the European Commission over its use of public funds. The motion was jointly tabled by Dutch lawmaker Sander Smit of the Farmer-Citizen Movement (BBB), who sits with the EPP in the European Parliament, and the eurosceptic ECR group member Pietro Fiocchi, of Italian premier Giorgia Meloni's populist Fratelli d'Italia party. It asserted that the EU executive 'failed to provide adequate safeguards to uphold the institutional balance in the Union by allowing the targeted lobbying of Members of the European Parliament on instruction of the Commission'. The environment committee rejected the objection by 41 votes to 40 on Monday evening (31 March) after three EPP lawmakers – Radan Kanev, Ingeborg Ter Laak and Dimitris Tsiodras – broke ranks and voted against the motion. Another two group members abstained. Otherwise, the vote was split along clear party lines, with the EPP/ECR motion enjoying the unanimous support of far-right and nationalist lawmakers, while the Socialists & Democrats, liberal Renew, Greens and The Left voted against. The committee subsequently rejected by a wider margin a substantively similar motion tabled by French nationalist Mathilde Androuët, a member of Marine Le Pen's far-right National Rally party who sits in the ranks of the Patriots for Europe Group. There were half a dozen EPP lawmakers, including Smit, among the 30 lawmakers who supported Androuët's motion. ' Vaudeville' In another twist, Smit blamed the EU executive for the debacle, accusing it of reneging on an agreement to read out at the committee meeting a statement admitting misuse of LIFE Programme environmental funds in exchange for the EPP dropping its objection. 'We had a deal in which the European Commission would finally admit abuses surrounding the green lobby rule them out for the future, but DG Environment refused to read the entire statement,' the Dutch lawmaker said on social media after the vote. 'Now the fight for EU NGO transparency really begins,' Smit said. The rejection of the two proposals may come as a relief to the European Commission. It is not legally bound to follow the outcome of such votes - in the case of genetically modified crop authorisations, it routinely ignores them - but it may have had to decide whether or not to abide by the wishes of the parliament over a high-profile and controversial issue. The European Environmental Bureau – among the 34 non-profit groups that were awarded LIFE funding last year, and one of eight that received the maximum €700,000 – was scathing, describing the committee meeting as 'low-level vaudeville' that was 'as absurd as the objection it debated'. 'The Commission needs to clearly stand up against this disinformation campaign and the fabricated scandal behind it,' the group's policy director Faustine Bas-Defossez said, having earlier described the EPP's campaign as a 'political attempt to silence civil society and dismantle democratic oversight'. The EPP's contention is that the European Commission had used the LIFE programme to pay NGOs to lobby MEPs on its behalf – a claim for which it has published no convincing evidence, although it did succeed in pressuring the EU executive to review guidelines on the use of funds. ADVERTISEMENT Related Use of EU funds to lobby MEPs was 'inappropriate', commissioner says In an ironic twist, it became apparent earlier thisyear that one of the key figures behind the push to disallow EU support for civil society groups, Monika Hohlmeier (Germany/EPP), had a lucrative side job in a private company that received €6.5 million from the LIFE Programme in 2022, well in excess of the €700,000 cap on operating grants to individual NGOs. Opponents see efforts of the EPP and it's right-wing allies as a populist campaign to silence a source of consistent and vocal criticism of their lawmakers' stance on environmental issues. Tiemo Wölken, the Socialists & Democrats environment policy coordinator said the vote was just the latest move in a 'reckless political campaign by the EPP and their far right allies to gag civil society'. 'The objections tabled today by the EPP and the far right in the ENVI committee clearly show their willingness to follow Donald Trump's dangerous footsteps in undermining democracy by weakening civil society,' Wölken said. ADVERTISEMENT Of the LIFE Programme's €771m annual budget, approximately €15m is allocated to NGOs.
