The trade association for public relations firms that collaborate with EU institutions is called EPACA. It encourages openness and moral behavior in lobbying and offers its members instruction and direction on how to follow its Code of Conduct. The EPACA document highlights a number of concerning cases in which dishonest NGOs have gained access to the European Parliament. The “Fight Impunity” NGO, founded by a former MEP and at the heart of the Qatargate affair, is one of the well-known examples.
The rising concern over fake NGOs and think tanks
The “Democracy Centre for Transparency,” which was revealed in April 2024 to be advocating on behalf of the Qatari government, is another example. Furthermore, misinformation regarding the technology company Dentsu Tracking was sent among MEPs by the “Fondation Democratie et Gouvernance.” By hiding their actual affiliations and financial sources, these organizations have been able to influence policy discussions and decisions by passing as respectable civil society organizations. These phony NGOs usually promote the policy interests of non-EU sponsors, avoid the EU Transparency Register, and hide their leadership and funding sources. These organizations have exploited the legislative process to further their own hidden agendas by setting up meetings, influencing resolutions, and asking the Commission questions.
In order to combat this threat, EPACA encourages MEPs and their staff to confirm that the entity is listed in the EU Transparency Register, carefully review the information provided regarding their funding and membership, and ask pointed questions if there are any concerns regarding the validity of the institution. According to EPACA, legitimate NGOs will readily reveal their financial and management information and will not face any difficulties adhering to transparency regulations.
While a variety of viewpoints are important in policy talks, EPACA emphasizes that honesty and openness are necessary to preserve the integrity of these discussions. The group is still a strong supporter of the highest standards of openness in lobbying on EU issues. Two weeks ago, dozens of green NGOs with headquarters in Brussels began receiving “Orbanesque emails” out of the blue. On behalf of the European Commission, CINEA, which handles funding for various environmental projects funded by the LIFE program, asked the NGOs to examine the grant contracts for 2024 that were authorized and signed earlier this year. According to the new commission’s policy guidelines, civil society advocacy efforts are no longer eligible for EU financing.
Threats to transparency and integrity
This new policy is based on two-page guidelines that were created by the commission’s directorate-general for budget and secretariat-general on May 7 of this year. And these might have a significant impact on everyone in the civil arena of EU policymaking, not just so-called “green NGOs.” The new guidelines state that “avoiding reputational risk” is a new standard for EU funding of non-governmental organizations. If a grant is used for “sending letters, arranging meetings, or providing advocacy material to EU institutions or specific members of an institution; or identifying specific members or officials of an institution to evaluate or describe their positions, or to discuss specific political content or outcome,” the commission claims that the risk is especially pronounced. Funding may be refused or suspended if an NGO crosses the ambiguously defined and widely defined border, which most certainly has no legal foundation. This will undoubtedly have chilling consequences, restrict civil society’s democratic action space, and further tilt the scales in favor of the corporate lobby groups that already control the lobbying landscape.
Enhancing oversight and accountability
The European People’s Party (EPP), the conservative faction in the European Parliament, has been putting political pressure on the commission to use EU grants to stifle criticism for years. This decision is the result of their effort. The EPP demanded “greater accountability and transparency for NGOs, in particular those accessing EU funding” during the EU election campaign, according to a recent Politico article. Some EPP lawmakers have been hostile since at least 2016, when Markus Pieper, a German MEP from Ursula von der Leyen’s German CDU party, spearheaded an assault on non-governmental organizations. The campaign’s “logic” was always that money should be cut off to organizations that disagreed with their policies and some EU directives. Pieper made two unsuccessful attempts to persuade a majority in 2017 and 2023 to use the prospect of a halt in EU money as a weapon against non-governmental organizations. However, his report was accepted last year. Pieper attempted to persuade his colleagues in the Budget Committee to conduct a report on the financing of civil society in 2016 when a large civil society movement mobilized against the contentious and now-defunct trade and investment pact (TTIP) between the US and the EU.
