As the “Corriere della Sera” points out, more than 3,400 NGOs operate in the capital of the European institutions. However, denounces the Italian daily, a large number of them actually defend the interests of large private groups. Or even worse.
Brussels is still the world capital of lobbies. And, from within the institutions, they always seek to influence EU policies. Sometimes disguised as NGOs. An example ? The cases of No Peace Without Justice and Fight Impunity [founded by Antonio Panzeri, key figure in Qatargate], two non-governmental organizations which, officially, dealt only with human rights.
However, according to Belgian justice, their leaders would have received bribes from Qatar to improve the image of the emirate on the eve of the World Cup. As Shakespeare once wrote : “When money precedes, all doors open.”
In 2011, in order to know who is meeting whom and to talk about what in Brussels, the European Commission created a Transparency Register . It took ten years for this tool to be extended to Parliament in 2021, but only on a voluntary basis.
In this register, lobbies are classified into three categories: entities that promote their own interests or those of their members (companies); intermediary groups (consulting companies); and finally organizations that do not represent commercial interests (NGOs, non-profit associations).
As of January 19, 2023, the registry has 12,417 groups, including 8,229 that officially pursue their own commercial interests, and 3,488 NGOs and nonprofits.
However, as Transparency International deplores, the category criteria being vague and too general, this classification system is proving to be unreliable. Indeed, many organizations do not register in the right category. As for controls, they are rare.
The NGO that defends palm oil
To register in Brussels, NGOs and non-profit organizations already classified as such in their country must, among other things, certify that their “main objective and/or field of activity is neither commercial nor for profit” . However, this is just a simple self-declaration.
This is why, among the many noble NGOs that operate in the protection of the environment, the reception of migrants, animal welfare, the treatment of rare diseases and others, there are also a number of intruders. . Here are some amazing specimens:
- The Italian Union for Sustainable Palm Oil, which states that its main objective is to promote sustainable palm oil among companies. An “NGO” financed by companies that sell products based on palm oil, such as Ferrero or Nestlé.
- The Wellness Foundation, another non-governmental organization, which promotes a healthy lifestyle. But, by the way, its president, Nerio Alessandri, is also the founder and president of Technogym, the world’s leading manufacturer of sports and leisure equipment.
- The Piedmont Aerospace Cluster, which defends the interests of the aerospace industry in the Piedmont region and responds to calls for tenders from the Commission for European aerospace projects. This organization is supported by giants of the defense industry like Leonardo or Thales.
- Elettricità Futura [Future Electricity], which represents 500 companies, including Enel, Italy’s main power generation company, and Eni, a giant in the transalpine hydrocarbons sector. Until January 9, Elettricità Futura was classified as a non-profit organization. Curiously, since that day, after the request for explanations from the Corriere della Sera , it is now registered in Brussels among the “commercial or industrial professional groups”.
- Accredia, the Italian entity for accreditation, which is financed by various ministries, deals with issuing certificates of homologation to EU standards and collects corresponding fees. On January 10, in response to our request for an explanation, spokesperson Francesca Nizzero simply explained to us that “Accredia [was] a non-profit organization, that is why it has been classified in the category of NGOs, but this does not prevent asking for a more appropriate category.” On January 17, Accredia withdrew from the registry.
But why do all these groups register as non-profit organizations when they clearly represent the interests of the entities that finance them, whose objective is profit? There seem to be two possible reasons for this.
Either the group registers by mistake, in good faith, in the wrong category. Or he says to himself that it will be easier for him to influence an institutional interlocutor by presenting himself as a group which defends collective and social interests. But is there even someone to control this registry?
30% of NGOs removed from the register
This is a crucial question, because such errors tarnish the reputation of thousands of associations and volunteers who really protect the common interests.
Already in 2018, the European Court of Auditors qualified the category of the register listing NGOs as unreliable, and, following challenges issued in 2021, nine auditors were appointed by the EU management to review the three categories. According to their report, “out of 3,360 groups checked, 30% were removed from the register for ineligibility or failure to update” .
After the incessant parade of briefcases of banknotes [the Qatargate scandal revealed that hundreds of thousands of euros have allegedly been paid by Qatar to members of Parliament], the President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, now wants the MEPs are subject to the same rules as the Commission.
In other words, that they have the obligation to notify any meeting with lobbyists of all categories, from multinationals to unions, including non-profit associations.
42% of Italian MEPs did not notify any meeting
So far, MEPs have only been “encouraged” to do so, and Italian politicians are proving particularly unzealous in this regard. Proof of this is that over the past three years, only 42% of them have officially declared at least one meeting with an interest group, compared to 76% for German MEPs, 62% for the French and 54% for the Spaniards.
But back to our NGOs. Of the 161 Italian NGOs appearing in the register, 132 say they have had “no meetings” with MEPs. Does that mean they signed up for future meetings? Or perhaps meetings did occur but were simply not declared.
source: courrierinternational