Brussels is in the midst of a growing scandal involving taxpayer-funded interference by environmental NGOs. The European Parliament’s EPP-led budgetary control committee (CONT) has ramped up efforts to investigate contracts tied to five major policy areas, following leaked documents and troubling revelations about misuse of EU funds.
Niclas Herbst, the CONT chair, has pushed for audits of all EU Commission contracts awarded to NGOs, including Transparency International. The organizations in question were funded by several directorates-general, including those for environment, climate, agriculture, justice, and home affairs.
The controversy began when Dutch media uncovered that €700,000 had been funneled to environmental groups to influence MEPs, national governments, and voters in favor of the EU’s Green Deal. The Commission defended the funds, claiming they were simply for “raising awareness” about climate change.
Monika Hohlmeier, an EPP member, bolstered these claims when she exposed irregularities in a €15 million grant for green NGOs under the LIFE environmental funding instrument. Hohlmeier suggested the environmental directorate used the funds to push the Green Deal, calling for an internal review by the EU’s audit services.
In response to pressure from MEPs, Herbst aims to broaden the scope of the investigation to include migration, agriculture, and the rule of law, leading to the inclusion of groups like Transparency International. However, the EPP’s move to investigate is being criticized by the left, with S&D party spokesperson accusing Herbst of using “false pretexts” to “name and shame” NGOs.
Green MEP Daniel Freund opposed the scrutiny, suggesting that if NGOs were being investigated, then business and trade contracts should be too. This call for greater transparency was dismissed as an attack on civil society, with Transparency International claiming the EPP’s investigation was rooted in retaliation. They argued that the EPP had targeted the group after it exposed conflicts of interest involving senior EPP members.
Meanwhile, conservative groups like Patriots for Europe (PfE) and European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) have taken the opportunity to push back against the Green Deal. They called for its suspension and reevaluation in light of these allegations, but the EPP refused to support this effort, prioritizing climate targets over true accountability.
Herbst responded to left-wing criticism by reiterating his role in scrutinizing taxpayer funds. He insists that the Commission needs to change its approach. However, if the EPP is serious about tackling misuse of funds, it should extend its focus beyond merely questioning the money’s distribution and address its long-term consequences. For now, it seems the Green Deal’s climate targets outweigh genuine accountability.
