Changes from report parliamentary committee draft to plenary report

Removed9. Is of the opinion that the alleged corruption case referred to as Qatargate and the role certain NGOs played in it could have been prevented through the consistent enforcement of existing transparency requirements and an obligation for NGOs to disclose their sources of funding and their internal structures; notes with concern that the relevant NGOs have profited from EU funding since 2015; considers it unacceptable that the use of funds and transfers to other organisations are not entirely traceable; warns of the danger that EU taxpayers’ money could ultimately be used within corrupt circles; emphasises the importance of ‘final beneficiary transparency’ for EU NGO funds;

Added9. Is convinced that transparency and accountability are also vital for NGOs and other for-profit or non-profit entities to showcase their valuable work, be recognised and build their credibility; considers that special provisions should apply to NGOs acting in full compliance with EU values and financial rules and in full respect of the EU Charter, while operating in democratically challenged environments; believes that European citizens must be assured that the EU knows exactly how all EU funds are used; is therefore concerned that there is a lack of information, data and control on who or what receives EU funds, despite existing transparency requirements; recalls that transparency and accountability requirements should always comply with international and human rights law, in particular regarding the exercise of civic freedoms, remaining strictly necessary and proportionate to the specific aims pursued;

Removed10. Recalls that the following findings and recommendations are based on the conclusions of the transparency and accountability study and address further weaknesses concerning the handling of EU funds by NGOs;

Added10. Recalls that transparency and accountability should not be used to curtail the space for independent civil society or to silence critical voices;

RemovedNGO definition

Added11. Underlines that it is of utmost importance to ensure that EU transparency and accountability obligations do not put the final beneficiaries of EU funds at risk; believes that, in duly justified cases, in particular for NGOs operating in countries ruled by authoritarian regimes or with recognised rule of law issues negatively impacting NGOs and with reduced civic space, where the public dissemination of information on the identity or the work of those NGOs could lead to reprisals, putting the existence of those NGOs and the security and safety of their staff at risk, public transparency requirements should exceptionally be applied in an appropriate manner;

Removed11. Reiterates the fundamental significance of public trust and support for NGOs; acknowledges that the terms used to describe these organisations are subject to different legal and public interpretations;

Added12. Is of the opinion that certain alleged corruption cases, which generated public discontent, such as Qatargate, could have been prevented through the consistent enforcement of existing transparency requirements and an obligation for involved entities, including NGOs, to disclose their sources of funding and their internal structures; notes that, in some cases, the involved entities profited from EU funding;

Removed12. Emphasises that the term NGO is a broad umbrella term embracing many different kinds of organisation: from large international organisations to small regional or local ones, from organisations run mostly by professionals to those consisting mostly of volunteers; highlights that the subject matter covered by NGOs and the method of implementation can also vary substantially, for instance, some NGOs may do work that is highly theoretical (for example the work of some think-tanks), or political (for example politically affiliated NGOs) whereas others may be very hands-on (for example the daily work that firefighting NGOs engage in across Europe); emphasises, therefore, that different types of NGOs should be differentiated when analysing levels of transparency and efficiency, and that a better definition of NGOs should be established at the EU level;

Added13. Condemns the increase in the exploitation of EU funds against EU principles and values, especially when the use of funds and transfers to other organisations are not entirely traceable; warns of the danger of EU funds ultimately being used within corrupt circles and being subject to fraud and irregularities, foreign interference or entryism; emphasises the importance of ‘final beneficiary transparency’ for EU funds;

Removed13. Reiterates the call for a common definition of an NGO made in the recommendations from the 2021 Commission discharge resolution; calls for a common definition of an NGO at EU level, in particular for NGOs receiving EU funding; is of the opinion that this definition should provide minimum common conditions for defining an NGO; considers that such minimum conditions must include the form of an organisation, the objectives it pursues, its level of formal or institutional existence, the accountability of its structures to its members or donors, its level of independence from government, other public authorities, political parties or commercial organisations, and the commercial or professional objectives it pursues on behalf of its members;

AddedNGOs and entities in the context of budgetary control

Removed14. Highlights the advantages of establishing a common definition for EU engagement with NGOs, encompassing direct deliberative, political and financial interactions; acknowledges the advantage of enabling a common understanding of what these partners are in relation to the EU and its bodies in different contexts, beyond the question of financial support; believes that the added value of a common EU-wide definition lies in increased transparency, accountability and predictability for EU institutions, the Member States, NGOs and EU taxpayers;

Added14. Reiterates the fundamental significance of public trust in and support for NGOs; acknowledges that the terms used to describe these organisations are subject to different legal and public interpretations, which vary among Member States;

Removed15. Notes that the spectrum of NGOs receiving EU funding covers a wide range of structures, ways of functioning, sources of financing and focus areas, which translates into a variety of projects that are financed with taxpayers’ money; notes that the Commission uses the terms NGOs and NFPOs without a clear definition in the FTS; regrets that this results in a lack of public transparency in the allocation and monitoring of EU funds and might lead to a lack of public trust;

Added15. Emphasises that the term NGO is a broad umbrella term encompassing many different kinds of entities: from large international organisations to small regional or local ones, from organisations run mostly by employees to those consisting mostly of volunteers; highlights that the subject matter covered by NGOs and the method of implementation can also vary substantially; understands that this diversity makes it difficult to have a common definition of NGOs within the EU; highlights, nevertheless, the advantages of establishing a harmonised EU-wide approach, including through a harmonised definition, whose added value lies in increased transparency, accountability, predictability and public trust; encourages the co-legislators, therefore, to reach an agreement on such a harmonised approach to NGOs and relevant entities at EU level, which would considerably help European budgetary control procedures, especially in the case of cross-border associations; reiterates the utmost importance of ensuring transparency and accountability for all entities that are granted EU funds; acknowledges the advantage of establishing a harmonised approach to what these entities are in relation to the EU and its bodies in different contexts;

RemovedControl and monitoring

Added16. Takes note of the Commission proposal to include a common definition of NGOs in the 2022 proposal for a recast of the Financial Regulation; recalls that Parliament, in its mandate, requested further clarity on the definition of an NGO, in particular on the degree of formal existence, transparency and accountability from its members or founders; encourages the Commission to conduct an in-depth consultation on the definition of an NGO, involving Member State officials and NGO representatives, also taking into account the methodology that was followed when defining the term ‘small and medium-size enterprise’ (SME);

Removed16. Is concerned about cases of fraud and irregularities, notably in situations where NGOs that are members of different international networks or platforms that receive EU funding are at risk of conflicts of interest, double funding, corruption or money laundering; is concerned about the lack of publicly available data on the fraud cases involving NGOs; calls on the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to compile and provide such data to Parliament and the ECA and to draw up a list of NGOs that have broken the law;

Added17. Considers that an NGO should not be financed 100 % by the state and the Commission in order to be considered an NGO;

Removed17. Is concerned that public transparency requirements can be circumvented, especially when money is passed along a chain and used to fulfil the purposes of other donors; highlights that the FTS does not provide any information about how EU funding sub-granted under indirect and shared management is distributed among NGOs, on what basis or for what purpose; considers this highly problematic, as large amounts of funding are committed through indirect and shared management; calls on the Commission to verify the re-allocation of funds and their use by the final beneficiary by imposing appropriate reporting and publication requirements in line with annual reporting by the Member States and the Commission on the implementation of the European structural and investment funds;

Added18. Notes that the Commission uses the terms NGOs and not-for-profit organisations (NFPOs) without a clear distinction in the FTS; regrets that this results in an uncertainty in the allocation and monitoring of EU funds and might lead to a misperception regarding the volume of funding for NGOs and entities; notes that the FTS FAQs provide a definition for NGOs whose non-profit status is an essential element and is subject to validation; regrets that this unclear distinction is possible as up to now, there has been no harmonised EU approach to NGOs and only self-classification of entities has been used for the FTS, which is based solely on rules that may vary among Member States; calls further for the FTS to ensure a proper categorisation of the various types of NGOs or NFPOs in order to avoid situations in which there is little or no differentiation between certain types of organisations and whereby universities, research institutes, voluntary organisations and other NGOs are considered identical in the FTS database;

Removed18. Regrets that a lack of transparency makes it possible for powerful actors to establish, fund and/or co-opt EU-funded NGOs in multiple Member States to promote false narratives, including through disinformation, apparently in order to influence EU policy through different actors, as happened in Qatargate; underlines that the EU budget must not be used to lobby against the EU’s democratic principles and values; reiterates that foreign influence on EU policymaking may be possible through NGOs; calls on the Commission to require NGOs in receipt of EU grants to publish details of any funding received from other sources in relation to projects co-financed by the EU over a five-year period;

AddedTowards better EU transparency and accountability of EU funds

Removed19. Calls for national lobby registry laws to also require the disclosure of donors and their international financial chains;

Added19. Considers that fraud, conflict of interests, double funding, corruption and money laundering or embezzlement must be prevented and tackled in all situations and for all beneficiaries irrespective of their nature and legal status; is concerned about the insufficient available data to the discharge authority on such cases; recalls that all applicants and beneficiaries of EU funding, including NGOs, are subject to EU financial rules;

Removed20. Recalls that certain organisations that engage in illegal activities and act against the EU’s values have been registered and are operating in Member States; believes that national administrations, which are closer to the ground, must assume responsibility for being the first effective layer that could stop organisations that are acting illegally and against EU rules;

Added20. Underlines that the Early Detection and Exclusion System (EDES) is an important instrument to protect the Union’s financial interests, ensuring multilevel protection through the early detection of persons or entities representing risks that threaten the Union’s financial interests; welcomes the Commission proposal for a recast of the Financial Regulation, which includes the extension of EDES to shared management and adds new grounds of exclusion; calls on the Commission to make EDES fully operational to allow for an effective exclusion of beneficiaries, including NGOs, based on the Financial Regulation, from further access to EU funds;

Removed21. Calls on national authorities to take legal and administrative measures that facilitate action at EU level and make it easier and quicker for the Commission to include such organisations in the Early Detection and Exclusion System (EDES) and exclude them from EU funding; calls for such a requirement for Member States to be included in the proposal for an NGO regulation;

Added21. Is concerned that transparency requirements can be insufficient, especially when funds are passed along a chain and used to co-fund joint projects with other donors; considers it problematic that the FTS only provides information about grants awarded directly by the Commission under direct management, but no details on funds received indirectly from beneficiaries and partners that have a legal relationship with the Commission;

Removed22. Regrets that public transparency is negatively impacted by the publication of data in the FTS with a delay of between 6 and 18 months; calls on the Commission to publish information about EU grants awarded to NGOs no later than 6 months after the date on which the grant was awarded, including funding received from other sources, such as foundations; calls on the Commission to develop and integrate data validation tools so that the FTS data validation process is automatic and continuous, is quicker and consumes fewer resources;

Added22. Emphasises that not all Member States provide the same level of information on grants and that the existing EU database is not sufficiently consistent and coherent; calls on the Commission to strengthen transparency and accountability in cases of shared and indirect management by verifying the re-allocation of funds and their use up to the final recipients, in line with the proposal for a recast of the Financial Regulation;

Removed23. Criticises those situations in which substantial co-funding is awarded from the EU budget to NGOs that are clearly and predominantly financed by non-EU states, networks or foundations and that deliver research that regularly negatively impacts European industry and transport providers; urges the Commission to trace the flow of funds from the first donor in order to prevent damage to the EU economy;

Added23. Calls on the Commission to reinforce ex ante control mechanisms proportionately, including adequate random checks; is of the opinion that severe weaknesses exist in the ex post control on the use of EU funds and urges the Commission, in cooperation with Member States, to produce an in-depth analysis with clear proposals to reinforce their quality, amount and regularity, supported by a well-established and centralised budgetary control task force within the Commission for all interest representatives, disposing of a clear mandate, investigation capabilities and resources;

Removed24. Regrets that the Commission’s systems are not very transparent and that their data differ, making it difficult to reconcile information from different publicly accessible Commission portals and databases, because they use different conventions to identify beneficiaries of projects and grants; recommends that the Commission establish harmonised rules and standardise the layout and functionalities of programme-specific databases;

Added24. Recognises the importance of transparency in all aspects of EU-funded activities to ensure the responsible and accountable use of funds; acknowledges the concerns regarding potential foreign interference in EU policymaking and that the system in place cannot fully prevent actors from establishing fund and/or co-opt beneficiaries, including NGOs, to promote false narratives including through disinformation, as allegedly happened in Qatargate; believes that existing concerns should not lead to a stigmatisation of all NGOs since most NGOs respect and promote EU democratic principles and values; underlines that the EU budget must not be used to lobby against the EU’s democratic principles and values;

Removed25. Calls on the Commission to use a common unique entity, such as a unique participant identification code, and project identification keys across all portals and databases, including on beneficiaries’ websites, to facilitate the reconciliation of publicly available information provided by different systems and websites; calls on the Commission to provide all NGO grant beneficiaries with code that extracts five years of funding data directly from the FTS and includes links to the corresponding project entries in the Commission’s programme databases;

Added25. Calls on the Commission to require beneficiaries, including NGOs, in receipt of EU funds to publish details of any funding received from other sources in relation to projects co-financed by the EU over a five-year period, while maintaining the principle of confidentiality, in particular, in duly justified cases of beneficiaries, including NGOs, facing serious threats of reprisal; underlines that funding for NGOs from outside the EU can be a legitimate source of financing, but stresses that without clear transparency rules in respect of the principle of confidentiality, such funding possibilities are open to abuse and undue influence from third state actors; calls on the EU institutions to improve the implementation of their transparency standards, including the obligatory reporting of lobbying activities;

Removed26. Observes inconsistencies in the content and extent of the information displayed on project websites and notes NGOs’ insufficient clarity on grant distribution among partners and on the connection to pertinent Commission databases; calls for a more proactive approach from NGOs to public transparency that goes beyond the current minimal requirements for EU grant funding; calls for a clearer and more systematic presentation of information on NGO and EU-funded project websites on the grant funding received from the EU and from other sources for both specific projects and overall, and on project objectives, results and impact;

Added26. Encourages the Member States to establish national lobby and transparency registry laws, which should also require the disclosure of donors, including international ones, and sources of funding, with equal transparency requirements for all interest representatives regardless of their nature and legal status;

Removed27. Notes that, although the mainstreaming of the eGrants system as a common grants management tool and applicant registration system across Commission services has improved the quality and completeness of FTS data, more effort needs to be made to improve the reliability of such data; is concerned that there are still continuing shortcomings in terms of consistency in existing Commission transparency portals and systems; further calls for a more user-friendly FTS that is linked to the Transparency Register and compatible with specific programmes’ databases, and highlights that it should include final payments and a clear definition of NGOs, making it possible to identify beneficiaries by category; requests that the Commission prepare a proposal for further administrative action by 1 June 2024;

Added27. Recalls that Member States are responsible for the registration, control and reporting of cases of detection of fraud, misuse of funds or money laundering, convictions or ongoing investigations; believes that national administrations, which are closer to the ground, represent the first effective layer for the control and monitoring of organisations that are acting against EU rules and values, in order to strengthen efforts to prevent, detect and tackle fraud and the misuse of funds;

Removed28. Welcomes the Commission’s proposal to set up, based on Article 36 of the Financial Regulation, a single, interoperable IT system for data mining and risk scoring to improve the efficiency of the internal control of budget implementation; underlines that this system must not only include recipients’ data, but also the data of beneficial owners in accordance with Directive (EU) 2015/849; calls for this system to include risk indicators based on data from the EDES under all management modes;

Added28. Calls on national authorities to strengthen their transparency and accountability systems in order to identify all organisations or entities that are acting against EU rules and values and to take legal and administrative measures that facilitate action at EU level and make it easier and quicker for the Commission to include the entities concerned in its systems; urges the Commission to include all interest representatives in violation of EU rules and values in the EDES and to exclude them from EU funding accordingly, in line with the Financial Regulation applicable to the EU budget;

Removed29. Demands that the guidelines for contracting external expertise, including by the political groups, better emphasise that only organisations that work based on verifiable facts are eligible for funding; demands that the recipients enter into a corresponding voluntary commitment prior to funding and that the Commission and the ECA carry out corresponding random checks; rejects any funding of organisations that have demonstrably spread false information and/or whose goals are directed against the fundamental values and recognised principles of the EU’s social market economy;

Added29. Is of the opinion that no margins of appreciation should be left for Member States to subject NGOs to fatally restrictive requirements and obligations; recalls that the Commission started an infringement procedure against Hungary when it introduced a foreign interference law in 2017 and that, in its judgment of 18 June 2020 (European Commission v Hungary), the Court of Justice of the EU stated that the right to freedom of association and thus EU law is violated if systematic obligations on CSOs are rendering significantly more difficult the action and the operation of the organisations subject to them;

Removed30. Acknowledges that the Commission provides administrative and financial support for the establishment of information platforms for MEPs and the public, but wonders, in the case of a platform on the Nature Restoration Law, whether the timing of the establishment and the lack of monitoring of the reliability of the information disseminated encouraged one-sided partisan political influence, thus giving the impression that the executive branch lobbies the legislative branch, which would constitute an improper use of taxpayers’ money; requests that the Commission disclose the timing and the amount of money flows in relation to that platform by 1 February 2024 and asks the ECA to review this case and determine what action should be taken;

Added30. Regrets the publication of data in the FTS with a delay of between 6 and 18 months and its impact on transparency; calls on the Commission to publish information about EU grants awarded to NGOs and entities no later than six months after the date on which the grant was awarded, including funding received from other sources, while taking into account the principle of confidentiality in duly justified case of beneficiaries, including NGOs, facing serious threats; calls on the Commission to develop and integrate data validation tools so that the FTS data validation process is automatic, continuous and quicker, and consumes fewer resources;

Removed31. Notes that there might be a conflict of interest in the EU institutions if the legislative branch were influenced by the executive branch; calls for the Commission, the EU agencies and other EU entities and institutions to be required to make their contracts, agreements and work programmes with NGOs available without delay to members of the Committee on Budgetary Control by 1 February 2024; regrets that multiple requests by the rapporteur for access to contracts between NGOs and European agencies have not been followed up and that a request must be made via the chairperson of the Committee on Budgetary Control; calls for access to contracts to be given to members of the Committee on Budgetary Control without delay;

Added31. Regrets the fact that the Commission’s IT systems are not user-friendly and use different conventions to identify beneficiaries of projects and grants, resulting in differing data, making it difficult to reconcile information from different publicly accessible Commission portals and databases; recommends that the Commission establish harmonised rules and standardise the layout and functionalities of programme-specific databases, taking into consideration the diverse environments and areas of action in which NGOs operate, and without putting additional unnecessary burdens on them;

Removed32. Notes that the coexistence of reporting obligations and accounting practices at the national and EU levels may lead to a disproportionate administrative burden for NGOs; calls on the Commission to ensure that reporting obligations at the EU and national levels are consistent in order to guarantee easier monitoring of the fulfilment of obligations, especially for smaller NGOs; calls on the Commission to develop a common monitoring system to identify final beneficiaries, as is already the case in regional policy; recommends that such a system should be based on the monitoring principles under shared management that apply to EU Member States;

Added32. Calls on the Commission to use a common unique entity, such as a unique participant identification code, and project identification keys across all portals and databases, including on beneficiaries’ websites, while maintaining the principle of confidentiality, in particular, in duly justified cases of beneficiaries, including NGOs, facing serious threats of reprisal, in order to facilitate the reconciliation of publicly available information provided by different systems and websites; calls on the Commission to provide all beneficiaries, including NGOs, with code that extracts five years of funding data directly from the FTS and includes links to the corresponding project entries in the Commission’s programme databases;

Removed33. Requests that the Commission provide a comprehensive analysis of whether and by what financial means it provides training for lobbyists, including NGOs, on the Financial Regulation and on the EU budget; requests that this analysis be provided by 1 February 2024 with a list of relevant training events and the names of beneficiaries; requests, if applicable, that the content of the training be made public; requests that the content of these training courses be made available to members of the Committee on Budgetary Control on request;

Added33. Observes significant inconsistencies in the content and extent of the information displayed on project websites including on the distribution of funds received among partners and on the connection to pertinent Commission databases; calls for a more proactive approach to public transparency and increased cooperation with EU budgetary authorities that goes beyond the current minimal requirements for EU grant funding; calls for the Commission to reinforce a system for a commitment from all applicants, including NGOs, to the EU Charter when applying for EU funds; calls for a clearer and more systematic presentation of information on EU-funded project websites on the grant funding received from the EU and from other sources;

RemovedEU transparency register

Added34. Calls for the ultimate owners of companies to be listed in central registers in EU countries, accessible to people with a ‘legitimate interest’, such as investigative journalists, concerned citizens and NGOs;

Removed34. Calls on the Commission to ensure that all applicants or beneficiaries of EU funding, including NGOs, are required to publish annually the number of lobbying contacts they have, along with their nature and their monetary value; reiterates in this context the need for a comprehensive financial pre-screening of these entities before they are listed in the EU transparency register; calls for a transparency officer to be placed in all committee secretariats and relevant administrative units; recalls that, according to the transparency register guidelines, changes in the data provided should be communicated as soon as they occur and, in any case, within three months; insists that any changes in the board or leadership of EU-funded NGOs should also be recorded in the transparency register;

Added35. Notes that, although the mainstreaming of the eGrants system as a common grants management tool and applicant registration system across Commission services has improved the quality and completeness of FTS data, more effort needs to be made to improve the reliability of such data; is concerned that there are still continuing shortcomings in terms of consistency in existing Commission transparency portals and systems; calls further on the Commission to step up its work on streamlining databases for a more user-friendly FTS that is linked to the Transparency Register and compatible with specific programme databases; highlights that it should include final payments, making it possible to identify beneficiaries, including NGOs, by category, including through the definition of an NGO and relevant entities in line with the Financial Regulation; requests that the Commission prepares a proposal for further administrative action by the end of 2024;

Removed35. Calls for strict enforcement of the rules for access to Parliament and for invitations to parliamentary committees, which are conditional on the registration of each organisation in the transparency register by the new transparency officer who will be placed in each committee secretariat;

Added36. Notes that in some situations the home office of the non-profit organisation is in one country and the beneficiary operations take place in another; calls for the non-profit organisations to take appropriate measures to account for funds and services delivered in locations other than their home jurisdiction;