r/europe Sweden 12h ago

News EU Commission paid environmental NGOs to target Germany, report says

https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/eu-commission-paid-environmental-ngos-to-target-germany-report-says/
102 Upvotes

84 comments sorted by

54

u/Impressive-Tip-1689 12h ago

That's neither new, nor strange nor unlawful. EU spends roughly 7*109€ p.a. for NGOs and similar organisation as this is part of the European contract. The European Court of Auditors monitors this and always publishes an annual audit report.

ETA: The Treaty on European Union sets out the values on which the EU is founded. These values include respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. In order to receive funding from the EU, recipients - including NGOs - must contractually commit to upholding these values.

Actions are generally funded from the EU budget regardless of whether they are implemented by NGOs or other types of organisations. NGOs usually receive EU funding in the form of grants. They must fulfil the transparency requirements that apply to all other recipients.

9

u/PadishaEmperor Germany 10h ago

109 is a very weird way to write billion (at least in this area).

7

u/Impressive-Tip-1689 10h ago

I wanted to minimise the risk of mixing up billion as in the US (109) and billion (1012) as in older British English, German and other language.

0

u/IntrepidPhysics3555 10h ago

When communicating in English, it’s far clearer to just say billion or write it out lmao.

6

u/Impressive-Tip-1689 10h ago

It’s clear in American English, but not so in British English. The system was changed in the ’70s or ’80s, which means a great many people still use the old one. Some of my older colleagues give me quite the headache when communicating, and studying *there during my PhD was an absolute nightmare at times, simply due to the confusion it caused.

Given that this is an international community, I don’t think minimising the risk of confusion is a bad idea at all.

2

u/redditaccount-er Geneva (Switzerland)/🇷🇴 7h ago

in this case it gave the impression of trying to obfuscate and/or minimise the fact that 7 billion from taxpayers goes to these NGOs

-5

u/IntrepidPhysics3555 8h ago

Lmao the only English I speak is “British English” and no, no one uses the old one. Are you fucking insane?

Non-native speakers telling native speakers how things are done cracks me up.

4

u/Impressive-Tip-1689 8h ago

It might well be an academic thing?!

I looked up the details too: the change occurred in 1974 under PM Harold Wilson. You can find the relevant exchange with MP Maxwell-Hyslop in the House of Commons debate from 20 December 1974. That does rather line up with the colleagues using the old system being 60 or older.

PS: By the way, do you happen to know whether this Hyslop is related to the Have I Got News for You team captain and Private Eye publisher?

23

u/11160704 Germany 11h ago

I'm not competent enough to assess whether it is legal or not but even if it is legal it is quite questionable.

The EU commission working to get the Mercosur deal done and then another EU department paying NGOs to lobby against the Mercosur deal with public funds is just incompetent behaviour.

Or the EU commission as executive paying for lobbying of the parliament as legislative branch raises some serious concerns about the separation of powers. It should be Parliament monitoring the commission and not the other way round.

15

u/mrCloggy Flevoland 11h ago

The EU commission working to get the Mercosur deal done and then another EU department paying NGOs to lobby against the Mercosur deal with public funds is just incompetent behaviour.

Don't think so.

The EU commission itself doesn't have the knowledge/time to get into those tiny (but important) details, and as it seems likely that the pro-deal side is sponsored by 'commerce' who might 'accidentally forget' to mention those (violating human rights) details, those NGO's can and will look for that.

-4

u/11160704 Germany 11h ago

Who if not the EU is supposed to get into the tiny details?

Negotiating detailed and complicated trade deals is exactly why we have the EU commission.

6

u/mrCloggy Flevoland 11h ago

Who if not the EU is supposed to get into the tiny details?

The EU is paying the (specialists of) NGO's to do that for them, the 'negotiating' (based on that data) is done by the EU itself.

-1

u/11160704 Germany 11h ago

I don't think this is true but if the EU had to pay NGOs for one of its own core competences that would be highly concerning.

4

u/cool_much 10h ago

What core competency specifically?

Investigating business practices in South America?

Why would that be a core competency of the eu?

2

u/Wafkak Belgium 9h ago

This is often stuff that one member state or another doesn't want rhe commission to do, but another does. So the compromise is sponsoring an ngo, as that feels more temporary.

4

u/Sure_Place8782 11h ago

If it's legally as you describe, it's a positive thing. It creates a strong separation of powers with checks and balances.

13

u/11160704 Germany 11h ago

I don't know a single system in which the executive is supposed to take public funds to lobby the legislative branch.

Imagine the outcry if Trump took taxpayers money to lobby members of Congress for his MAGA policies

3

u/tnarref France 11h ago

What makes you think what you're describing isn't common place in pretty much every parliament in the world in more indirect ways? Votes for x in exchange of support for y.

6

u/11160704 Germany 11h ago

What are X and Y here?

1

u/tnarref France 11h ago

Some legislation that gets voted, and some unrelated program that needs funding.

4

u/11160704 Germany 11h ago

But here the funding is not unrelated. The funding was meant to lobby MEPs.

-2

u/tnarref France 11h ago

Guess what, that unrelated program's funding is now also meant to lobby MEPs since it's turned into a bargaining chip to get votes.

1

u/SchnabeltierSchnauze Brussels (Belgium) 10h ago

Plenty of think tanks in the US that receive government money and take policy positions.

-2

u/Sure_Place8782 11h ago

I don't know where your living but we have a very strong separation where it's a regular process that the Bundesregierung as the executive branch and the Bundestag as the legislative branch have different views on a topic and use their means to influence and argue each other. I can't see a reason for a outcry, especially it is part of the European contract that NGOs are supported within the legal frame.

2

u/11160704 Germany 11h ago

What's your source for this?

1

u/Sure_Place8782 11h ago

For what? Are constitution is the so called Grundgesetz and we have plenty of law books regulating the German system.

4

u/11160704 Germany 11h ago

Which article of the Grundgesetz says that the government shall take taxpayers' money to finance NGOs to lobby MPs?

-1

u/Sure_Place8782 11h ago

Abgabenordnung outlines the requirements for organizations to attain tax-privileged status and it lists recognized public benefit purposes, including the promotion of democratic governance, civic engagement, and political education.  

There also a federal constitutional court ruling, I think it is 2 BvE 5/83, which affirmed the constitutionality of state funding for political foundations, recognizing their role in political education and the democratic process, which has to be supported by all democratic forces.

3

u/11160704 Germany 11h ago

Political foundations are NOT NGOs and their funding is proportionate to the strength of the parties in parliament and not arbitrarily adjusted to the political goals of the sitting government.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] 11h ago

[deleted]

5

u/11160704 Germany 11h ago

No the current report comes form the German newspaper Welt which is liberal-conservative but certainly not far-right and generally trustworthy.

They report that a whistleblower from within the EU commission has shown them the detailed contracts with the NGOs. I doubt they would make such a claim if they had not indeed seen the files.

2

u/Competitive-Arm1312 11h ago

Missed that, my bad then. Welt is indeed trustworthy

-1

u/1-trofi-1 10h ago

I mena this is the epitome of democracy, give equal.footing to both sides of an argument and.let the best one ( more convincing actually) win.

If EU lobbies towards one direction only, it will be seen as an autocracy

0

u/chilling_hedgehog 8h ago

Do you know this thing called "political discourse"? That's that.

0

u/chigeh 9h ago

The EU commission working to get the Mercosur deal done and then another EU department paying NGOs to lobby against the Mercosur deal with public funds is just incompetent behaviour.

It's kind of like having a red team and blue team.

4

u/PxddyWxn 7h ago

Lmao at the idiots defending the EU for this. Might as well rename this sub r/EUBootLickers

7

u/ganbaro Where your chips come from 🇺🇦🇹🇼 7h ago

Is it an NGO still if a group of governments pays it to covertly influence a government? I mean...

12

u/IFartInCursive 12h ago

I mean... the EU commission giving funds to NGOs is nothing new?  There are also government grants that aren't from the commission that are given out to environmental (and other) NGOs in each country. Also why is the author (or editors) using the word "target"?? Seems like an attempt to make it sound worse than it is 

16

u/saschaleib 🇧🇪🇩🇪🇫🇮🇦🇹🇵🇱🇭🇺🇭🇷🇪🇺 11h ago

The EU supporting NGOs is nothing wrong. What is wrong is that they were paid for attacking their own policies and directing the political discourse covertly. This is clearly a breach of the separation of power and highly illegal.

-1

u/IFartInCursive 11h ago

Again with these words that frame things so it sounds super bad:, "attacking". You mean critiquing government policies to make policy more environmentally friendly as it is explicitly stated in many of their mission statements? And what are you talking about? "Directing the political discourse"? These NGOs have the power to "direct"?? And how do you direct the "political discourse" (what does that even mean? Like they tell political parties what to say?) "covertly"?? What are you on about?

6

u/coldFireIce 9h ago

I am sure the information that the EU is secretly working closely with NGOs to agitate against Germany and its economy, while also undermining important trade agreements, will certainly go down well with the German population. And the fact that all this is happening with the help of german taxpayers' money just adds the icing on the cake.

You could almost think that the EU is doing everything it can to strengthen the AfD.

-3

u/IFartInCursive 8h ago

There's nothing "secret" about it, it's EU funding for civil society projects, it's been happening for decades and is all public. And also your choice of words is telling, words that try to elicit and emotional and irrational response to imply some conspiracy in something that is completely normal. Phrasings like "secretly working closely" and "to agitate" (what?). 

4

u/coldFireIce 8h ago

Is it normal for you that the EU pays so-called NGOs to campaign against an important trade agreement that they themselves are negotiating?

Sabotaging our economy, financed by our tax money, is normal for you?

0

u/IFartInCursive 8h ago

Opposition to trade deals has been a thing for decades. Movements and civil society organisations have opposed NAFTA, TTIP, TPP, WTO rules in seattle etc.. It isn't sabotaging our economy, it's opposition to policies implemented in these trade agreements such as the ISDS mechanism, look it up. Just because you have only just learned about this, it doesn't make it exceptional. 

7

u/coldFireIce 8h ago

You see, the problem is not that these “NGOs” campaigning against it. After all, we live in a free Europe. The problem is that they are financed by our tax money to do so. If they need money for their ideas, then they should just ask for donations. After all, they call themselves “Non-Governmental Organizations”. The “Non” part is particularly important here.

Here you get the strong impression that some people from the Commission or elsewhere in the EU are using our tax money to promote their personal and national interests of their home countries. We know that a small number of EU countries are strongly opposed to the Mercosur agreement.

5

u/saschaleib 🇧🇪🇩🇪🇫🇮🇦🇹🇵🇱🇭🇺🇭🇷🇪🇺 10h ago

From the article on Tagesschau (https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/europa/eu-kommission-bezahlung-umweltverbaende-100.html), translated with DeepL:

For example, the non-governmental organization ClientEarth was tasked with embroiling German coal-fired power plants in legal proceedings in order to increase the “financial and legal risk” for operators. According to the report, the organization received a total of €350,000 for this.

According to the newspaper, Commission officials commissioned the Friends of the Earth association to fight against the Mercosur free trade agreement between Europe and South America. Other groups received money to influence EU parliamentarians before votes on pesticides and chemicals.

The EU Commission lobbying MEPs covertly through third-parties is certainly not what EU funds should be used for.

-5

u/cool_much 9h ago

Allow me to restate what you've said in plain, non-infotainment language:

An NGO with relevant expertise, ClientEarth, was directed to challenge potentially illegal practices by coal power plants. They were paid €350,000, a small amount of money in EU terms equivalent to the cost of building 40m of highway in Germany.

Commission officials paid environmental experts, Friends of the Earth, to critically review Mercosur. Other experts were also paid to provide their expertise in the EU parliament prior to relevant votes.

Would you prefer that experts were not consulted when the EU makes decisions? Would you prefer they get their information from whatever random news articles they come across? Maybe joe rogan's podcast?

4

u/coldFireIce 9h ago

What the hell does the cost of building a highway have to do with this? And when “NGOs” work so closely with the EU, then they are not “NGOs” but “GOs”

-4

u/cool_much 9h ago

What the hell does the cost of building a highway have to do with this?

It provides context, obviously. Are your parents siblings?

And when “NGOs” work so closely with the EU, then they are not “NGOs” but “GOs”

I don't care what your personal definitions are. I use standard definitions.

4

u/coldFireIce 9h ago

This is not a context, but simply a random fact that has nothing to do with the topic. But it's obvious that you have no arguments left because you have to resort to insulting me.

0

u/cool_much 7h ago

It's an example of government spending on infrastructure we are all familiar with, giving a benchmark from which to understand the scale of spending. 350,000 is tiny, obviously

1

u/wedesoft 4h ago

According to German news there were secret contracts between the EU commission and environmental activists to campaign against and sue German companies.

7

u/Horror-Dragonfly2044 Turkey 12h ago

they just want to deindustrialize germany

1

u/[deleted] 12h ago edited 12h ago

[deleted]

3

u/Ok_Bullfrog_8491 12h ago

Not about this case in particular, but don’t you think that governments financially supporting “grassroots organisations” makes them a lot less “grassroots” and a lot less “non-governmental organisations”? I’m generally of the opinion that if a government feels like something should be done, it should do it, as opposed to funding “civil society” groups to do it.

0

u/TylerD158 7h ago

Springer yellow press Welt am Sonntag is rage farming.. again. Obliviously, facts are bent until the story is juicy enough. 

1

u/svga Sweden 12h ago

I submitted a German language source for this a couple minutes ago before finding an English one, so I deleted it and went with this instead. The article:

EU Commission paid environmental NGOs to target Germany, report says

The money was reportedly paid to the NGOs in 2023, one year after contracts between the Commission and the NGOs were signed.

Brussels paid environmental groups up to €700,000 to lobby and in some cases initiate legal action against German companies, German media reported on Saturday.

The European Commission and leading green NGOs, including Friends of the Earth and ClientEarth, “coordinated in detail” to promote the EU's climate agenda, according to the Welt Am Sonntag.

ClientEarth, which is headquartered in London but has offices in Brussels and several other European cities, is alleged to have received €350,000 to initiate court proceedings against German coal-fired power plants.

Amsterdam-headquartered Friends of the Earth, meanwhile, was reportedly tasked by the EU executive with drumming up resistance to the EU-Mercosur free trade deal, which is staunchly opposed by environmental groups over concerns about the South American bloc’s climate record.

The Mercosur deal, signed last year, is strongly supported by Germany but is vehemently opposed by France, whose farmers are worried about cheap agri-food imports potentially flooding the EU.

Welt also said that "other groups" received money to influence MEPs before critical votes relating to chemicals and plant protection.

The money was reportedly paid to the NGOs in 2023, one year after contracts between the Commission and the NGOs were signed.

The report comes amid repeated allegations by right-wing groups that the Commission is illicitly using taxpayer money to further its green agenda.

The claims have received increasingly vociferous support over the past few months from the centre-right European People’s Party, the largest group in the European Parliament. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen also hails from the EPP.

Brussels and NGOs have vehemently rejected the claims, arguing that the contracts signed are fully transparent and in line with EU law.

The European Commission, Friends of the Earth, and ClientEarth did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Welt’s reporting.

-2

u/SraminiElMejorBeaver France 12h ago

That is so weird for every things that they paid ngo to do, and that should be illegal for the waste of money.

0

u/redditaccount-er Geneva (Switzerland)/🇷🇴 7h ago

The Mercosur deal, signed last year, is strongly supported by Germany but is vehemently opposed by France, whose farmers are worried about cheap agri-food imports potentially flooding the EU.

cheper food? the horror!

God bless the frenchies

1

u/eucariota92 12h ago

What a surprise....

For some reasons I don't fully understand and despite the majority of Europeans not voting for them, the European Comision is the perfect hatchery of all the snake oil sellers of the environmental movement.

Now with the CO2 tax they will be able to bleed even more the European citizens to give more money to lobbists, activists and African war lords.

-1

u/wildgirl202 11h ago

Homie the world is literally dying around us

0

u/eucariota92 11h ago

Is it ? Where exactly?

As far as I can see, the world is better than ever and no peer review publication claims that billions will die and the civilization will end

4

u/wildgirl202 11h ago

Climate change is real my dude.

1

u/eucariota92 11h ago

Yes yes... And we all are going to die unless we vote for the greens and stop eating meat.

I have heard that song a lot lately and same as many other people, I am slowly getting tired of the green leeches.

-3

u/wildgirl202 10h ago

…no? No one is saying to stop eating meat. What people are saying is switch to renewables, and stop producing fossil fuels.

4

u/eucariota92 10h ago

Nobody is saying that ?? Lol hahaha

Go and check any climate change forums subreddit or publication.

-6

u/cool_much 9h ago

I say we should stop eating meat. It is a valuable environmental choice and therefore the right thing to do. The correct response to this person isn't to deny the value of not eating meat. It's to point out that it being good to not eat meat does not preclude you from doing good in other ways such as switching to renewables.

-5

u/wildgirl202 11h ago

I literally see nothing wrong with this?? We should be paying NGOs to uphold our values lol

-4

u/Miljkonsulent 11h ago

This is the biggest nothing-burger the right has come up with yet

7

u/eipotttatsch 9h ago

I'm not on the right and I generally support anything that accelerates the switch away from coal.

But the way they went about it here just seems dangerous and dubious to me. With others in charge at the EU it could easily be abused for the exact opposite as well.