|
|
|
Last Updated: Aug 27, 2008 - 11:20:33 AM |
It turns out, Europe's governments pay hundreds of
millions of Euros annually to groups which export Europe's attitudes to
governments overseas. It seems that Europe's politicians and
accountants are unaware of what's being done with public money, and
fraud may be the smallest reasonable complaint. Small? Consider EUR 790
million.
The purpose and legitimacy of diverting Europe's public funds to the
activist group Friends of the Earth (FOE) has recently been questioned.
Some claim that the FOE is paid public funds in exchange for lobbying
European governments with the governments' own policies.
Such simple accusations completely fail to address what is actually a
very complex issue. The FOE is merely one component of a system in
which the European Commission, the Member States of the European Union,
European foundations, and other organzations, disburse, receive, and
redirect hundreds of millions of Euros annually through a widespread
network of activist organizations.
In addition, the efforts of the FOE and similar groups are not merely
directed at the EC and the European Parliament. The groups use these
funds to support campaigns which influence public policy and
legislation around the world. The diversion of European funds to
multinational activist groups which intervene in the policies of
foreign governments therefore becomes a legitimate subject of
international concern.
Moreover, it is not the case that the FOE or other groups receive
Europe's public funds in a straight-forward transaction. Once paid,
these funds pass so freely, through so many accounts and 'green'
corporations, that it is nearly certain that no donor government knows
how much it actually paid to the FOE, or to any similar organization.
Such a system easily lends itself to corruption, self-dealing, and
outright fraud, and in various ways, all of these appear to be likely.
Grounds for complaint
The grounds for a recent complaint against the FOE appear based as much
on the vast sums of money involved as on what the FOE actually does, or
is purported to do, in consequence of its payment.
Roger Helmer, British Member of the European Parliament (MEP), calls
diverting public funds to the FOE "grotesque" and "anti-democratic".
"In funding such NGOs the commission can be seen to be responding to
apparently independent, voluntary groups while, in fact, it is actually
paying to have itself lobbied to take actions which, in the main, it
would wish to take anyway," Helmer said. (1)
Chris Heaton-Harris, also a British MEP, was applauded when he raised
the issue in the European Parliament. "There is something wrong with
organisations being funded by the European Commission to then lobby
Parliament and the Commission", he said. (2)
If the FOE is being paid to tell the Parliament and the Commission what
these bodies want to hear, the likely conclusion is that Parliament and
the Commission prefer to be woefully misinformed and misled.
A recent example of this is a publication by the FOE of a new report,
titled "Who Benefits from GM crops? - The Rise in Pesticide Use". It
purports to prove that these crops "are not good for the environment,
as they are increasing pesticide use," and that they "do not benefit
small farmers or consumers in terms of quality or price." (3)
Graham Brookes, an agricultural economist and director of PG Economics
Ltd., found the report to be "inaccurate and incorrect", (4) and Mark
Cantley, former adviser to the Directorate for Life Sciences of the
European Commission, says it is "inaccurate to the point of mendacity".
(5)
If the governments of the European Union prefer to finance the
production of a report of such dubious quality for their own purposes,
that may be lamentable, but that is their business. It is something
altogether different when Europe pays the FOE to circulate such a
report internationally as part of a program to lobby governments around
the globe with the same agenda.
This is not an isolated incident, nor even atypical of the FOE's
business dealings. The FOE receives nearly all of its income from
European governments, but maintains subsidiary offices in 70 countries
-- most of them outside of Europe. (6)
These matters pose more than theoretical challenges to the meaning of
democracy in Europe, or to the mutual respect which nations should
maintain on matters of foreign interference in domestic policy. These
are also practical matters, because the policies these groups advocate
both in Europe and abroad result in disruptions in national development
and international trade which far exceed the sums Europe bestows on
these groups.
FOE International: public funds of the Netherlands
In tracing public money paid to the FOE, it seems appropriate to start
with its world headquarters. They are found in Amsterdam, the
Netherlands, which is the world's financial crossroads for activist
groups and those who pay them.
The 2006 annual report issued from the FOE International claims total
revenues of EUR 2,830,172. "Donor grants" made up nearly *all* of that
figure, or EUR 2,496,239. (7) The report divides its expenditures into
a number of vague categories, but offers much less information on the
sources of its income. Donors and amounts from each are not identified,
but it is reasonable to assume that the FOE is most grateful to its
most generous donors.
Those to whom the FOE says it is most grateful are, in order of
mention, HIVOS, Oxfam Novib, Cordaid, the Dutch Ministry for the
Environment (VROM), and the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs
(DGIS-TMF). (8)
HIVOS calls itself a 'non-governmental organization' (NGO). However, it
is heavily funded by the Dutch government and will receive a grant of
EUR 260 millon over the next four years. (9) Oxfam Novib, the Dutch
subsidiary of Oxfam International, is set to receive EUR 509 million
from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the years 2007 to 2010. (10)
Cordaid is a foundation, which means it exists primarily for the
purpose of moving money from one place to another. In 2006, Cordaid
received over EUR 3 million from the Dutch government, over EUR 3
million from taxes levied on sales of Dutch lottery tickets, over EUR
13 million from the EU and other governments, and more than EUR 120
million from the "Co-financing programme." (11)
The Co-financing program provides government funds, via the Dutch
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to NGOs which receive at least 25 percent
of their funding from "other sources." (12), (13)
Rounding out the top five to whom the FOE headquarters is most grateful
are the Dutch Ministry for the Environment (VROM), and the Dutch
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DGIS-TMF).
The nature of these latter two agencies of the government of the
Netherlands is fairly self-explanatory. Even so, there is a remarkable
element: The Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs funds Cordaid and the
FOE separately, but Cordaid also funds the FOE.
It appears that the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs is funding the
FOE twice over. Whether the Ministry is aware of this is unknown.
The only solid conclusion which can be drawn from this is that the FOE
international headquarters is funded almost exclusively by European
governments. If its gratitude is the sole indicator of the governments
involved, the government of the Netherlands is its primary source of
its funds (14), and secondarily, the European Union.
The FOE's European subsidiary: European Union funds
The FOE has a subsidiary operation for Europe generally, and in its
2006 annual report, this subsidiary treats income and expenditures in
the same manner as the head office. Expenditures are divided into vague
categories, while the category for income is simply called, "Total
income". In that category, it claims receipts of EUR 1,377,429.88 (15)
Just as is done by its international headquarters, the FOE's European
subsidiary discloses those to whom it owes "special thanks." Those
include the EU Commission Directorate General (DG) Environment, DG
Employment and Social Affairs, DG Trade, the Ministry for Environment
Austria, the Ministry for Environment Germany, the Ministry for
Environment Netherlands, and the United Nations Environmental Program.
(16)
It's complicated enough that this subsidiary receives money from the
EU, and also from the United Nations, which itself receives funds from
individual EU member nations. (17)
Far more complexity is introduced by the FOE's internal dealings. Its
European subsidiary also offers "special thanks" to the FOE
international headquarters.
This leads to a situation where the FOE headquarters are funded
directly by the Netherlands, and via Cordaid, by the Netherlands once
more. FOE headquarters funds its European subsidiary, which the
subsidiary receives in addition to funds received directly from the
European Union, and indirectly from EU funds paid to the United Nations
and turned over to the European branch of the FOE.
The European subsidiary of the FOE also offers "special thanks" to
"Friends of the Earth national groups." (18) There are 70 such groups,
most of them outside Europe. The FOE home office in Amsterdam claims in
its 2006 report to have distributed EUR 1.4 million to 27 of its
"members worldwide". (19) With worldwide members of the FOE also
supporting the FOE's European subsidiary, it may be impossible to
determine whose government has paid what to whom. This is especially
true since Cordaid also claims to have "140 partner organizations in 20
countries", (20) and lists of 'member' and 'partner' organizations tend
to overlap. Sometimes to a significant degree.
Clearer documentation from the European Commission demonstrates how
these groups overlap, making this picture even more complex.
What the EC claims about funding the FOE
The European Commission (EC) has published what it claims to have paid
to the 'environmental' NGOs such as the FOE. In tabular format, one
document identifies by name the recipients of the EU's public funds,
and the amounts overtly paid to them.
However, a cursory investigation of the accounts of these recipients of
European public funds reveal even more re-diversion of these funds,
also on a massive scale, -- and also in favor of the FOE. As a result,
the FOE appears actually to receive far more in-cash and in-kind
support from the EC than the EC claims, or even may know about.
According to the European Commission, it paid EUR 519,067 to the
international headquarters of the FOE in 2006, an amount which the EC
believed to be 40.6 percent of the FOE's income. (21), (22) This belief
seems to be at odds with the FOE's claim of income nearly five times
that amount.
The EC's accounting also reveals a payment of of EUR 218,563 to the
Agree.net Association. According to the EC, that accounts for nearly 80
percent of Agree.net's income. The FOE is a "member" of Agree.net. (23)
Another group heavily heavily funded by the EC is the European
Environmental Citizens Organization, based in Brussels. It received EUR
122,717, and according to the same report, that was 70 percent of its
income. The FOE is one of its members. (24)
Still another group, calling itself a "network" (which may be an NGO or
a foundation) is the International Network for Sustainable Energy
(INFORSE), based in Denmark. According to EC records, the network
received EUR 48,327, for about 57 percent of the network's income.
INFORSE has several members, including the FOE - Japan, NOAH (FOE
Denmark), Norges Naturvernforbund (Friends of the Earth Norway), REDES
- Red De Ecologia Social - Amigos De La Tierra (FOE) Uruguay, and
Saqarthvelos Mtzvaneta Modzraoba Dedamitzis Megobrebi (IEB) / Friends
of the Earth - Georgia. (25)
This means that the EC's diversions of public funds to INFORSE are
actually re-diverted to five different national subsidiaries of the
FOE. These subsidiaries already receive EC support through FOE
headquarters, and it appears these other subsidiaries are providing
support back to European operations.
Yet another foundation, the Netherlands-based Stichting Seas At Risk
Federation, received EUR 76,915 from the EC for a claimed 32.8 percent
of its income. Its "members" include Friends of the Earth International
and Norges Naturvernforbund (Friends of the Earth Norway). (26)
However, Norges Naturvernforbund is already getting EC money from the
INFORSE 'network', so what it actually receives from the EC may well be
in excess of the claimed 32.8 percent claimed by the EC.
The Climate Action Network (CAN), based in Brussels, is somewhat unique
in this mix of publicly-funded activist groups. According to the EC,
the CAN received EUR 222,230 in 2006, a sum which the EC believes to be
nearly half of the group's income. In addition to receiving public
funds, the group also levies a charge for being a member -- and the FOE
is one of them. (27)
The CAN is therefore in the position of receiving public funds directly
from the EC, and of receiving more such funds through the FOE, in the
form of membership fees. Thus, the EC may well be providing a greater
percentage of the CAN's income than the EC believes it does.
Whose friend is the FOE?
Despite the lack of unambiguous accounting statements, it appears quite
obvious that the FOE is completely funded by the governments of Europe,
and that the group receives far more European public funds than
Europe's governments comprehend. At the same time, it is clear that the
FOE and similar groups advocate, both in Europe and abroad, a set of
policies which Europe's own politicians say are those which the
European Commission prefers to advocate. Nothing highlights this
alignment of policy and lobbying better than the FOE's opposition of GM
crops and the food and feed made from them.
Some have claimed, in defense of the FOE, that diverting public funds
to the group gives it an "independent voice." (28) The casual treatment
of public funds by the FOE and similar organizations certainly conveys
an air of independence. However, the dependence of the FOE and similar
groups on cash from the coffers of Europe's governments indicates that
these groups could not sustain their existence independently. By
extension, the influence these groups exert on non-European governments
would falter, or even disappear, without these remarkable subsidies.
At the same time, the FOE and related groups have consistently
enunciated, both in Europe and abroad, the policies which the European
Commission has carried into practice. In Europe, this includes a
discrimination against GM crops, grains and oilseeds which has brought
the European livestock and poultry industries to the brink of crisis,
(29) and exposed Europe's entire economy the threat of trade sanctions
(30). Abroad, the results have been more varied, and far more tragic --
but that is outside the scope of this paper.
The diversion of government funds discussed in this article amount to
more than EUR 790 million, which is roughly equivalent to $US 1.16
billion at current rates. "Double counting" of public funds in reaching
this total is likely, due to the diversion and re-diversion of these
funds, but the extent to which that impacts the actual total is
impossible to determine. Even so, the total likely understates the
actual amount of Europe's public money laundered among activists in
Europe and abroad. This paper focuses on the financial nexus
represented by the FOE and is therefore not a comprehensive examination
of all groups involved -- some of which are vastly larger in financial
terms.
----------------
Notes:
1. "EU Commission pays group to lobby Brussels," Martin Banks, The
Telegraph (UK), Aug. 20, 2007, www.telegraph.co.uk
news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/17/weu217.xml
2. "EU 'wasting' cash on lobby groups," Simon Cox, BBC News (Radio 4's
The Investigation), Dec. 6, 2007, news.bbc.co.uk . . .
3. See generally, "GM Crops Increase Pesticide Use," Friends of the
Earth International (press release), Feb. 7, 2008, www.foei.org . . .
ase-pesticides
4. "PG Economics welcomes new ISAAA brief: Global status of
commercialised biotech crops 2007," Graham Brookes, PG Economics
Limited (press release), Feb. 13, 2008, www.pgeco
nomics.co.uk/ISAAA%20brief%20Global%20status%20of%20commercialised%2
0biotech%20crops%202007.htm
5. Mark Cantley, personal correspondence, Feb. 16, 2008.
6. "Friends of the Earth International member groups," web accessed
Feb. 17, 2008, www.foei.org . . .
7. "Annual Report 2006," Friends of the Earth International, web
accessed Feb. 16, 2008, www.foei.org . . .
8. Ibid.
9. "Hivos receives full subsidy from Dutch government," HIVOS (web
posting), web dated Sep. 25, 2006, web accessed Feb. 17, 2008,
www.hivos.nl . . .
10. "Public Annual Report 2006," Oxfam Novib, web accessed Feb. 17,
2008, www.oxfamnovib.nl . . . erslag/Annual-Report06_ENG_web.pdf
11. "Annual 2006 Report - Abridged," Cordaid, web accessed Feb. 17,
2008, partners.cordaid.nl . . .
bout%20Cordaid/General/0706005COR-JVS06-PUB-Eng-web.pdf
12. See, e.g., "The Netherlands (2006), DAC Peer Review: Main Findings
and Recommendations - Review of the Development Co-operation Policies
and Programmes of the Netherlands," Development Co-operation
Directorate of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD), web posting, web accessed Feb. 17, 2008,
www.oecd.org . . . ,en_2649_34603_37425308_1_1_1_1,00.html
13. Foundations do more than simply move money, however -- they also
decide to whom it should be moved. It is notable that Cordaid plans to
"invest in increasing the policy influencing capacity of 140 partner
organizations in 20 countries. The percentage of total spending on
lobby will increase from 13% to 20% by 2010." Ibid.
14. The Netherlands is one of the world's three largest exporters of
agricultural produce. See, "Welcome to the Netherlands," Dutch Ministry
of Foreign Affairs (web page accessed Feb. 19, 2008), www.minbuza.nl .
. . and "Country Profile: Netherlands," British Foreign &
Commonwealth Office, web dated Mar. 26, 2007, web accessed Feb. 19,
2008, www.fco.gov.uk . . .
/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029394365&a=KCountryProfil
e&aid=1019061813313 The Netherlands is not in a position to compete
against high-efficiency national producers of low-cost food and feed.
See, e.g., "Beyond the Past: Three Scenarios for the Future of Dutch
Agribusiness 1990-2015," SHS Acta Horticulturae 429: XIII International
Symposium on Horticultural Economics, web accessed Feb. 19, 2008, www.
pubhort.org/actahort/books/429/429_23.htm
15. "Annual Review 2006," Friends of the Earth - Europe (web posting),
web accessed Feb. 17, 2008, www.foeeurope.org . . .
16. "Assessment of Member States' advances to the Working Capital Fund
for the biennium 2006-2007 and contributions to the United Nations
regular budget for 2006," United Nations Secretariat, Dec. 27, 2005,
www.globalpolicy.org . . .
17. "Annual Review 2006," Friends of the Earth International, supra.
18. Ibid.
19. See note (7), supra.
20. See note (13), supra.
21. "Results of the Call for the submission of proposals under a
Community Action Programme promoting nongovernmental organisations
primarily active in the field of environmental protection (2006) -
Operating grants" (web posting), web accessed Feb. 17, 2008,
ec.europa.eu . . .
22. The FOE's accounting for the same period appears to bear little
relation to these claims. See "Annual Review 2006," Friends of the
Earth International, supra.
23. "Member groups," Agree.net (web posting), accessed Feb. 17, 2008,
www.agreenet.info ?Member-groups
24. "Members," European Environmental Citizens Organisation for
Standardisation (web posting), web accessed Feb. 17, 2008, www.ecost
andard.org/about_members.php
25. "INFORSE Members," search product of web posting, web accessed Feb.
16, 2008, www.inforse.dk . . .
26. "Seas At Risk Members" (web posting), web accessed Feb. 17, 2008,
www.seas- at-risk.org/links_n2.php?page=24
27. "109 members in over 25 European countries," Climate Action Network
(web posting), web accessed Feb. 17, 2008. The page has since come
down. The CAN now claims it is a "is a worldwide network of over 365
Non- Governmental Organizations", but does not identify them. See,
"About CAN" (web posting), web accessed Aug 14, 2008, www.climatenet
work.org/about-can
28. See "EU Commission pays group to lobby Brussels" and "EU 'wasting'
cash on lobby groups," supra, notes 1 and 2.
29. See, e.g., "World GM plantings concern European grain, oilseed
crushers and feed trade," COCERAL, FEFAC and FEDIOL (press release) via
SeedQuest, Feb. 14, 2008, www.seedquest.com . . . and "Europe facing
meat crisis over GM wrangle," Carl Mortished, The Times (UK), Feb. 14,
2008, business.timesonline.co.uk . . . markets/europe/article3365815.ece
30. See, e.g., "US sanctions request in GMO case challenged by EC,
referred to arbitration," World Trade Organization (web posting/press
release), Feb. 8, 2008, www.wto.org . .
Source:Ocnus.net 2008
Top of Page
|
|
|
|