Secret contracts between the European Commission and “green” NGOs were part of an alleged “shadow lobbying scheme”, Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf has reported.
“Organisations were assigned goals to achieve specific lobbying results with both MEPs and member states, aiming to promote a more ambitious green policy agenda,” the newspaper claimed on January 22.
On the afternoon of that day, the plenary debate in the European Parliament was due to focus on European Union financing through the LIFE programme for entities lobbying the bloc’s institutions and the pressing need for transparency.
The LIFE programme is the EU’s funding instrument for environmental and climate action.
According to De Telegraaf, Brussels used money from a billion-euro climate and environmental subsidy fund for its shadow lobbying activities. The environmental groups were required to justify their actions.
“For instance, the European Environmental Bureau [EEB] – a European umbrella organisation for green organisations – was explicitly tasked with providing at least 16 examples where the European Parliament made green legislation more ambitious thanks to their lobbying efforts.
“The controversial Nature Restoration Law, initiated by former EU Commissioner [Frans] Timmermans, also had to be ‘promoted’ by this umbrella organisation of 185 environmental groups,” the paper said.
Furthermore, according to the contract, which De Telegraaf reviewed, €700,000 in subsidies was to be used to “influence” the farming debate in a more environmentally friendly direction.
Piotr Serafin, Commissioner for Budget, Anti-Fraud and Public Administration, said in a reaction to the newspaper report that it was “inappropriate to enter into agreements that require NGOs to lobby MEPs”.
“Unfortunately, such practices have occurred in the past and must be eradicated. Measures have already been taken to address this problem and I can assure everyone that they will not happen again.”
Serafin did add that NGOs were still welcome, calling their input “essential”.
Dutch MEP Dirk Gotink, of the centrist New Social Contract Party, claimed there were numerous politicians who needed to be approached regarding the matter.
As a member of the Committee on Budgetary Control, he and his colleagues promised to investigate subsidy contracts for the last five years.
“This is not a smear campaign against the environmental movement. Of course they are allowed to lobby. I am aiming my arrows at the European Commission,” he said.
“This appears to be a highly orchestrated collusion between a green coalition led by Timmermans and a left-wing majority in the European Parliament.”
Gotink wondered if the EC also paid people to manipulate debates on other issues.
“Is this one rotten apple or is it a widespread institutional practice?”
He added that the rules needed an update to prevent the EC from using taxpayer’s money to push its own ideological agenda.
On X, Dutch politician Geert Wilders reacted, posting: “Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Timmermans”.
Dutch MEP for the Farmer Citizen Movement (BBB) Sander Smit said: “Unacceptable how taxpayers’ money was misused by the previous Commission to subsidise green political lobbying.”
Former MEP Derk Jan Eppink said: “Green Plan economics works in a simple way: subsidise, infiltrate and manipulate. With NGOs as shock troops.”
The European Environmental Bureau Secretary-General Patrick ten Brink reacted in an open letter: “A flourishing democracy requires resources that enable citizens’ voices to reach decision-makers.
“Unlike actors with substantial resources, such as foreign governments and multinational corporations, European citizens and their civil society organisations often lack sufficient means. EU support is necessary to ensure a more level playing field.
“We believe that our involvement has helped strengthen the EU’s reputation as a global leader in the necessary global transition to a pollution-free, carbon-free future,” ten Brink said.
In December 2024, the EC informed environmental NGOs that money from the EU’s €5.4 billion LIFE programme could no longer be used for advocacy and lobbying work, implying to many that before then, they could have been.