Activities of Beatrice COVASSI related to 2023/2122(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Transparency and accountability of non-governmental organisations funded from the EU budget (debate)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the transparency and accountability of non-governmental organisations funded from the EU budget
Amendments (44)
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas only the funds directly awarded to NGOs have been subject to monitoring and reporting by the Commission so far;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
B a. whereas the Treaties require the EU institutions and EU Member States to maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society; stresses the importance for EU Members States and EU institutions to provide adequate funding to programmes aimed protecting and promoting rights and values enshrined in the EU Treaties; recognises the role NGOs and CSOs play in implementing these programmes;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas an analysis of FTS data shows that grants awarded from the EU budget to NGOs, after excluding EU programmes in the field of education and research, amounted to at least EUR 2.6 billion in 2022, under direct management, across all EU programmes and funds; whereas the total amount of grants awarded to NGOs is likely to be higher owing to the absence of a definition of an NGO or of clear differentiation between NGOs and not-for-profit organisations (NFPOs) in the FTS11 ; _________________ 11 Overall amount of grants awarded from the EU Budget to NGOs in 2022, based on FTS analysis – approx. EUR 3.7 billion.mounted to EUR 3,7 billion in 2022; whereas currently only NGOs have to publish their funding sources while all the interest groups have to provide an estimation of their lobbying budges;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the vital role played by NGOs in linking civil society with political decision-making in all EU policy areas; highlights, in particular, their role in implementing the EU budget and reppromoting and defending human rights and democracy, combating any form of discrimination, fighting for a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, informing individuals and groups, especially the most vulnerable, about their rights and standing up for them when those rights are violated, denouncing human and civil rights violations, promoting intercultural dialogue, civic engagement and public participation, countering disinformation and hate speech, collecting public interest information and holding governments and elected representatives accountable to citizens, and fighting corruption and impunity for human rights abuses; stressenting civil societys, moreover, their crucial role in providing societal benefits and assistance for the most vulnerable groups, including women, LGBTIQ+ persons, persons with disabilities, minorities, migrants and refugees;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Points out that laws and the legislative process often neglect the voices of local, regional and national NGOs, while favouring the priorities of large NGOs, that the priorities andshould take into consideration the different needs of smaller local and, regional NGOs are often ignored or have less attention paid to them, despite the fact that these smaller and regional groups often do the majority of the work; emphasises that the work of small and regional organisations is to be paid the highest respect, as they represent the true diversity and variety of volunteer work performed across Europe, and national and international NGOs;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Commends the crucial role of NGOs in the EU and elsewhere in defending the rule of law and promoting respect for human rightsaround the world in defending and promoting human rights, the rule of law and democracy; reiterates that in countries with authoritarian or non- democratic regimes, NGOs often represent the last line of defence of democracy; insists on the importance of adequate EU funding for NGOs active in these fieldswhose aim is to shrink civil society space and silence dissenting voices, NGOs often represent the last line of defence of democracy; is alarmed that some governments have adopted legislation based, inter alia, on security, counter-terrorism and the fight against foreign interference, that imposes discriminatory obligations on human rights NGOs and their workers, stigmatises, restricts or bans their activities, freeze their assets, deters their donors from contributing funds or deprives them from access to funding;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Remains deeply concerned by threats to and unjustified attacks on NGOs in some Member States, including by proposing and adopting legislation that imposes discriminatory obligations on NGOs that restrict or ban their activities, and through online and offline intimidation and harassment against their staff, negative public statements and smear campaigns, verbal threats, and legal and physical attacks; stresses that some NGOs also face excessive administrative controls or audits, politically motivated funding cuts and overly strict legal requirements for their formation and registration; insists that NGOs must be protected and should receive adequate funding and support;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Is convinced that public transparency is also vital for NGOs to showcase their valuable work, be recognised and build their credibility;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. 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, through the consistent enforcement of existing transparency requirements, corruption, as well as the danger that EU taxpayers’ money could ultimately be used within corrupt circles; emphasises the importance of ‘final beneficiary transparency’ for EU NGO funds, can be avoided;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. 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 NGOsPoints out that strengthening the transparency requirements for interest representatives and entities, including NGOs, could serve the purpose of tracing of tracing foreign interferences; underlines that these requirements, however, should not create burdensome procedures and should not stigmatise legitimate foreign funding;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. 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;
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. 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 professionalaid workers 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 bettera better harmonisation of the definition of NGOs should be established at the EU level;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. 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 inat establishing the above mentioned common harmonised definition can be an element of increased transparency, accountability and predictability for EU institutions, the Member States, NGOs and EU taxpayers;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. 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 fundHighlights that the FTS does not provide any information about how EU funding sub-granted under indirect and shared management is distributed among NGOs;
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Calls for national lobby registry laws to also require the disclosure of donors and their international financial chainEncourages Member States to establish national lobby registry laws;
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. 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; bBelieves that national administrations, which arebeing closer to the ground, must assume responsibility for being the first effective layer that could stop organisations that are acting illegally and against EU rulerepresent the first effective layer for control and monitoring of organisations and reporting to the EU in case of suspected fraud or misuse of funds;
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. 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;
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. 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 awarded15 , 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 resources16 ; _________________ 15 See: transparency and accountability study, recommendation 5. 16 See: transparency and accountability study, recommendation 7.
Amendment 177 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
Amendment 185 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
Amendment 187 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Regrets that the Commission’s systems are not very transparent and that their data differnd data are not user friendly, 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;
Amendment 192 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Calls onRecognises that the Commission to uses 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;, but calls onfor 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 correspondingestablishment of a link between FTS and specific project entriesdata in the Commission’s programme databases17 ; _________________ 17 See: transparency and accountability study, recommendation 19.
Amendment 199 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. 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 beythe lack of connection between the project websites and the related Commission databases; underlines that sometimes these differences could also depend on the fact that, in some countries ruled by authoritarian and illiberal regimes and with reduced civic spaces, the dissemination of such information may put NGOs at risk; calls all beneficiaries of EU funding to the best possible public transparency; calls the Commissiond the current minimal requirements for EU grant funding18 ; 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 ando provide clear and consistent guidelines on project objectives, results and impact, building up on best practices, and to make them available on programme databases; calls for the establishment of harmonised but flexible approaches to make EU funding more visible to the public, while avoiding putting at risk NGOs that ovperall, and on project objectives, results and impact; _________________ 18 See: transparency and accountability study, recommendation 17.te in precarious contexts and face serious threats and reprisal for receiving EU funding;
Amendment 206 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. 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 systemsconsistency of such data; 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 definitions of NGOs, making it possible to identify beneficiaries by categoryall categories of beneficiaries, including profit and non profit organisations; requests that the Commission prepare a proposal for further administrative action by 1 June 2024;
Amendment 216 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
Amendment 220 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
Amendment 229 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
Amendment 231 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. 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;
Amendment 235 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Requests thatInvites the Commission to 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 listor intensify training for all its programmes officers and implementing agencies on the Financial Regulation and on the EU budget; call the Commission to provide all beneficiaries of EU funding training tools ofn 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; porting and financial rules; calls the Commission for the simplification of grants application and selection procedures, uniformity of approach and transparency of the process, reduction of administrative burden, and regular adaptation of these rules to changing circumstances and lessons learned; calls on the Commission to increase the ceiling for administrative expenses of NGOs and explore new models for full cost recovery of overhead costs;
Amendment 241 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. 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;all EU institutions for far stricter implementation, enforcement and supervision of adherence to the current provisions on the EU transparency register; calls for allocating more resources to the Transparency Register Secretariat so that it is able to offer support to all applicants and registrants, especially small entities and NGOs, throughout the registration process and to verify the information they provided more thoroughly; in particular, 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 NGOsentities registered should also be recorded in the transparency register;
Amendment 252 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
Amendment 258 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Recalls the recommendations from the 2021 Parliament discharge resolution22 calling for a revision of the EU transparency register and its guidelines to require the disclosure of details on all funding sources from registered organisations, including the shares held in other companies, and to allowtrace EU funds to be traced, as far as the existing rules allow it, from the direct recipient to the final beneficiary when funds are passed along a chain, including when funds from one NGO or stakeholder are transferred to another; _________________ 22 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2023)0138, paragraph 74.
Amendment 261 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
Amendment 274 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Reiterates its call made in the 2021 Commission discharge resolution23 to adopt an NGO regulation by 1 June 2024 that includes harmonised minimum requirements for NGOs across all EU entities and a clear definition and categorisation of the fields of activity and size of NGOs and that provides for the necessary conditions for NGOs to receive EU funds; insists that there should befor a clear definition of NGOs in line with the financial rules proposal that can be applicable to all funding programmes and encompasses the different National legal frameworks, including a clear distinction between regular NGOs and ‘public utility NGOs’; calls on the Commission to establish simplified procedures for small NGOs; _________________ 23 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2023)0137, paragraph 20.ification of non profit organisations working for the public good;
Amendment 281 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
41. Calls on the Commission to ensure that, when preparing its proposal for the NGO regulation, important questions on issues relating to, but not limited to, clear definitions, revolving doors, transparency in financing and donations, the fight against money launderingconsistency of financial policies and regulations with other current and future EU rules and policies that relate directly or indirectly to NGOs, such as the rule of law, limiting foreign interference, independence from political and economic influence, whistleblowing, and transparency in actual leadership and ownership are dealt with in a sufficiently transparent manneplementation of the Charter of fundamental rights, the anti- money laundering package, the EU Transparency Register; calls for the organisation of civil dialogue with the sector;
Amendment 288 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Reiterates its call in the 2021 Commission discharge resolution24 for the creation of a public blacklist of NGOs that have engaged in activities such as hate speech, incitement to terrorism, religious extremism, supporting or glorifying violence or spreading unfounded scientific statements or that have misused or misappropriated EU fundsensuring that all EU funding beneficiaries that have misused or misappropriated EU funds, have engaged in activities contrary to the EU values, and are listed in the EDES database in order to ensure that they are blocked from access to EU institutions and EU funding programmes; expects a proposal on this to be put forward by the Commission no later than 1 July 2024; _________________ 24 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2023)0137, paragraph 19.
Amendment 296 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43
Amendment 300 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
44. Calls on the Commission and the ECA to systematically submit to Parliament, as the discharge authority, the information from the risk-based on-site reviews of NGOs that it conducts; calls on the Commission to go beyond the minimum requirementEU beneficiaries aund increase the number of NGOs it subjects to reviews; insists that such information be made publicly availableer direct management and their results;
Amendment 305 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45