Nationalist MEPs Should Focus on the Brussels Scandal Involving Civil Society Organisations Rather Than Yorgen Fenech’s Bail

Our Nationalist MEPs would do well to direct their attention to the brewing scandal in Brussels and communicate directly with the Maltese public whether there are local NGOs who had benefited money from this racket rather than commenting on the bail granted to Yorgen Fenech. This unfolding controversy involves allegations of significant fraud within Brussels, where funds were reportedly distributed to NGOs in exchange for political support.

Is it a coincidence that Civil Society organisations in Malta started to be formed at a time when the EU created an occult to finance such organisations through Frans Timmerman’s support?

I sincerely hope no organisations linked to the Nationalist Party benefit from these questionable funds. However, the silence surrounding this matter raises suspicions. Similarly, it appears that NGOs with connections to the Labour Party may have also benefited, particularly those advancing gender or abortion-related agendas.

What is even more concerning is the ADPD’s silence. They are typically vocal about corruption and good governance, but their lack of response to this scandal is alarming. I can’t help but question whether they, too, might have received funding to promote Brussels’ agenda.

To shed more light on this issue, I am publishing a liberal translation of an article from the Belgian digital portal, Wynia’s Week.

About Wynia’s Week

Wynia’s Week is an independent Dutch digital magazine that publishes articles, columns, videos, and podcasts thrice weekly, totalling 156 editions annually. Founded by journalist and author Syp Wynia, the platform covers a broad range of topics, with a particular focus on politics and economics.

In addition to written content, Wynia’s Week offers podcasts and videos that delve into current affairs with in-depth discussions and analyses. These are available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, SoundCloud, and YouTube.

The platform’s independence is maintained through donations from its readers and listeners, ensuring its commitment to delivering essential insights on contemporary issues.

The article I am referencing, initially written in Flemish, delves into the money trail underlying this scandal. Notably, the authors highlight the creation of what came to be known as European Civil Society Networks. These Civil Society groups, often operated by a few individuals, were ostensibly established to receive funding from the European Union. Interestingly, the emergence of such networks in Malta “allegedly aimed at combating corruption” coincided with establishing this broader structure across Europe. This period also overlapped with the tragic murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia. I leave it to the reader to examine the article below and form their conclusions.

Scandal: PvdA Member Frans Timmermans Secretly Subsidised Action Groups in Brussels to Lobby the EU Parliament for His Green Plans

From left to right: Frans Timmermans (Image: internationale.pvda), Helena Braun (Image: ispo.com), Diederik Samsom (Image: railtech-europe.com), and Patrick ten Brink (Image: eeb.org).

In Brussels, the European Commission has provided significant subsidies to action groups (“NGOs”) and other lobbies for years. This should have raised questions earlier, but such scrutiny was rare. However, it has now been revealed that former European Commissioner Frans Timmermans imposed a critical condition on subsidies granted to green NGOs. In exchange for funding, they were required to promote his green plans (the “Green Deal”) within the European Parliament.

This scandal has come to light as Europe increasingly shifts politically to the right. The questions now are: Was this the first instance of such a practice under Timmermans and his Green Deal? Or does the European Commission frequently issue subsidies stipulating recipients lobby on its behalf? Furthermore, could this scandal create problems for Timmermans, “who denies knowledge or responsibility,” and his former right-hand man in Brussels, Diederik Samsom?

Lists of “MPs to Influence”

While the flow of Brussels funds to NGOs and other lobbies has been public knowledge for years, secret agreements have only recently surfaced ”specifically between the team of former European Commissioner Frans Timmermans, led by fellow PvdA member Diederik Samsom, and green lobby groups. The issue here is not the subsidies but potential unethical conduct or corruption. The green lobby groups reportedly advocated for Timmermans” plans in exchange for financial support.

The issue gained traction after Dirk Gotink (NSC), a member of the European Parliament’s budget committee, raised questions. He requested information about lists of “MPs to influence” allegedly passed to NGOs by the Commission. Gotink, representing a tiny splinter party outside the establishment, is a member of the EPP group of Christian Democrats. The EPP has increasingly opposed the Green Deal due to its perceived negative impact on industry and agriculture. This political context set the stage for the revelations.

Gotink also drew attention to the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), an umbrella organisation comprising 185 climate groups in Brussels. The scandal has heightened concerns about significant subsidies to increasingly influential climate lobby groups.

The NGOs Saw It Coming

Barely a month ago, a document leaked revealing that the European Commission was considering budget cuts to the LIFE programme. With a budget of €5.4 billion, this EU initiative has long supported climate activist NGOs. Officially, it funds “environment and climate action.” Green lobby groups immediately protested, arguing that such cuts would hinder their critical work in raising awareness. In a letter to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, 30 green groups insisted that “democracy requires infrastructure and resources to enable citizens to reach decision-makers.”

Three Powerful NGOs

The NGOs claimed they needed EU funding to compete with well-resourced governments and multinational corporations. They identified themselves as “civil society.” However, the EU Transparency Register reveals that “civil society” in this context consists of organisations with few members or donors, relying almost entirely on EU subsidies and contributions from large philanthropic organisations (often also subsidised).

The primary beneficiaries include Friends of the Earth Europe (FoEE), the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), and Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe. These influential organisations present themselves as networks of environmental associations and claim to distribute part of their EU funding to members or affiliates.

EEB’s Significant Influence

These lobby groups/NGOs combine subsidies with paid assignments for the EU, providing experts and organising events sponsored by the Commission. Under the leadership of German Patrick ten Brink, the EEB has positioned itself so prominently that many European officials, companies, and even journalists mistakenly view it as an EU institution rather than a private lobbying group.

EEB is one of the most influential lobby groups in Brussels. It consistently reports high-level meetings with senior EU officials and Commission members. In the first weeks of 2025 alone, the EEB logged two in-person meetings and one online meeting with the Commission. In 2024, it reported 14 such contacts ”less than during Timmermans” tenure, but its ties with his former close associate Helena Braun (from Estonia) remain strong.

With 65 employees, the EEB fields an army of lobbyists. In 2023, it received €1,955,910 EU subsidies, including a maximum of €700,000 from LIFE. According to the Transparency Register, its annual budget is approximately €7.6 million. However, the EU Financial Transparency System (FTS) provides a different picture, indicating that €72.12 million was allocated and €33.91 million disbursed in 2023. This discrepancy arises because the Commission sometimes requires proof before disbursing funds or providing advance payments. Moreover, many subsidies are distributed to the EEB’s 185 member organisations, amplifying its power.

The “Green 10”

The EEB excels at obtaining EU subsidies, including funding from the Horizon Programme for scientific research. Between 2020 and 2022, it received €21.34 million through this programme. However, its subsidies increased tenfold in 2023, raising serious questions.

The LIFE budget (2021-2027) represents 0.3% of total EU expenditure. Last year, the maximum €700,000 LIFE subsidy went to major green lobby groups, including EEB, CAN, and FoEE, as well as others like Transport & Environment, Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL), and Wetlands International Europe. Most are almost entirely dependent on EU subsidies, with some proudly calling themselves the “Green 10.”

A Strange Reasoning

After the leaked Commission document surfaced, a hearing was held in the European Parliament in early December. During this budget hearing, European Commissioner Piotr Serafin was confronted with concerns that the Commission, by funding NGOs, was indirectly lobbying the European Parliament through third parties. This raised serious ethical concerns. Serafin responded that the Commission takes these concerns seriously and has already issued internal guidelines to clarify which activities are eligible for EU funding. However, the leaked document made green NGOs panic, prompting them to write a protest letter.

In this letter, some NGOs received clarification about which lobbying activities would no longer be eligible for EU subsidies. However, in a subsequent written response, Serafin denied the allegations of “indirect lobbying,” claiming that recipients of EU subsidies remain fully independent and responsible for their positions and opinions. This reasoning is, at best, peculiar.

After all, the issue is whether lobbying occurs or indirect lobbying is a condition of receiving subsidies. This is particularly relevant in the case of LIFE subsidies. Beyond the ethical implications, a broader question arises: Are such conditional subsidies widespread across the Commission’s funding programs?

Implicit Subsidy for EU Ideology?

The European Commission is unlikely to fund organisations that openly oppose its policies or existence. A long-standing joke among academics was that you could secure a European subsidy for a conference or event by hanging an EU flag in the auditorium and including European cooperation in the program. This often resulted in small but reliable grants from the Commission, primarily if academics from other EU member states were invited. Similarly, media outlets that promote EU cooperation or ideology can often count on financial support.

The critical question is whether this implicit “feudal behaviour” remains the norm. Are many Commission subsidies an unspoken way of supporting policies or ideologies aligned with the Commission’s priorities? This may apply not only to NGOs but also to governments, universities, and corporations. As the saying goes, “He who pays the piper calls the tune.”

Fraud Reports Disappear into the Trash

There is another dimension to this story. The European Court of Auditors (ECA), ”the EU’s equivalent of a national audit office“, is preparing a report on EU subsidies and NGO funding. This report is expected to be released in the first half of 2025. The investigation is already creating unease among climate lobby groups and emboldening critics of the Green Deal.

However, any concerns for Timmermans, Samsom, or Braun appear minimal. Over the years, the European Court of Auditors has forwarded numerous fraud cases to the EU’s anti-corruption body, OLAF. Unfortunately, these cases have often been dismissed without further action.

About the Author

Lode Goukens is a journalist and educator who regularly contributes to discussions of European politics, climate policy, and governance. His work critically examines the intersection of public funding, lobbying, and political ethics.

Wynia’s Week is published thrice weekly, offering independent and essential articles, columns, videos, and podcasts. The publication is made possible by its donors. Will you join us again in the new year 2025? Visit the link HERE for more information. I appreciate your support!