21 Amendments of Peter POLLÁK related to 2023/2122(INI)
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Emphasises the crucial role played by grassroots and community organisations, trade unions, activist groups, human rights defenders andthat non- governmental organisations (NGOs) in promoting and upholdplay ing democracy, equality, the rule of law and fundamental rights and in ensuring accountability for state and private actionstic system;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Stresses that public transparency and accountability of NGOs must be ensured especially when EU tax payer’s money is spent; further emphasises that through scrutiny is indispensable to protect democracy;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Reminds the Commission to guarantee that no Union funds are allocated to organizations (Union or international), third parties, and/or natural persons linked to any cause or form of terrorism and/or radicalization;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that civil society is a broader category than that of NGOs; notes that while NGOs are, on the one hand, a favoured institutional form of the neoliberal state and therefore rarely truly oppositional, on the other hand many resist instrumentalisation and expose the excesses of state and private interests; stresses, therefore, that they must be protected, including through the provision of adequate funding, including foreign funding; notes that it iNGOs short-sighted tould not be treat NGOsed as a singular bloc with a singular policy outlook;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Emphasizes that the term NGO is a wide umbrella term under which many different kinds of organisations may fall: from large international organisations to small regional or local organisations, from organisations run mostly by professionals to organisations consisting mostly of volunteers; highlights that the subject matter covered by NGOs and the method of implementation can also vary substantially, for instance, some work of NGOs may vary from being highly theoretical (for example the work of some think-tanks), or political (for example politically affiliated NGOs) to being highly hands on (for example the daily work that firefighting NGOs engage in across Europe); emphasizes that therefore, a differentiation between different types of NGOs should be made when analysing levels of transparency and efficiency, and that a better definition of NGOs should be established at the EU level;
Amendment 45 #
2 b. Reiterates the call for a common NGO definition in the recommendations from the 2021 Commission discharge resolution; calls for a common NGO definition 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 the government, other public authorities, political parties or commercial organisations, and its commercial or professional objectives on behalf of its members
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2 c. Reiterates its call in the 2021 Commission discharge resolution to set up 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 be a clear distinction between regular NGOs and ‘public utility NGOs’; calls on the Commission to establish simplified procedures for small NGOs;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)
Paragraph 2 d (new)
2 d. Calls on the Commission to ensure that, when preparing its proposal for the NGO regulation, important questions on issues relating but not limited to clear definitions, revolving doors, transparency in financing and donations, the fight against money laundering, limiting foreign interference, independence from political and economic influence, whistleblowing, and transparency in actual leadership and ownership are dealt with in a sufficiently transparent manner;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 e (new)
Paragraph 2 e (new)
2 e. Is concerned about cases of fraud and irregularities, notably in situations where NGOs that are members of different international networks or platforms in receipt of EU funding are at risk of conflicts of interests, double funding, corruption or money laundering; is concerned about the lack of data publicly available 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;
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Remains deeply concerned by threats to and attacks on NGOs in some Member States;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Member States and the EU to improve the legal environment for civil society by ensuring that any measure restricting the right of associations to seek, secure and use resources, including foreign resources, must pursue one of the legitimate aims under Article 11(2) of the European Convention on Human RightsNGOs, in order to ensure their transparency, including in their funding, and accountability;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Amendment 90 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls that transparency and accountability measures must only serve the purpose of ensuring legitimate public scrutiny on the way EU taxpayer’s money is spent; stresses that reporting requirements for NGOs must remain strictly necessary andbe proportionate to the specific aims pursued;
Amendment 91 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. 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, in order to apparently influence EU policy through different actors, as happened in Qatargate; underlines that the EU budget must not be used to lobby against the democratic principles and values of the EU; 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 on any funding received from other sources in relation to projects co-financed by the EU over a five-year period;
Amendment 93 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5 b. Criticises the 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;
Amendment 94 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5 c. 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 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 be also recorded in the Transparency Register;
Amendment 102 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that current EU instruments are likelynot sufficient for achieving proportionate transparency goals concerning NGO funding;
Amendment 108 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Recalls that recipients of AMIF funds have greater transparency obligations than those laid down by Financial regulation; recalls that Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) is set up for the period 2021-2027, with a total of EUR 9.88 billion, whereas the largest part is implemented under the shared management with decreased transparency as the final recipients of funds do not have the obligations to register in Financial Transparency System;
Amendment 110 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6 b. Regrets that Financial Transparency System does not show actual disbursements of grants or redistribution of grants between beneficiaries (multi-beneficiary projects), as this is not required by Article 38 of the Financial Regulation, notes that the Commission receives this information;
Amendment 111 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6 c. Recalls that around 70% of EU programmes and funds are implemented under shared management; further emphasises that for the remaining 30% the Court found that the Commission’s Early Detection and Exclusion System (EDES) which only applies to directly and indirectly managed funds relies too much on declarations of honour given by the applicants instead of vetting them which creates a high risk of EU funds benefiting unknown beneficiaries with various levels of security risks attached;
Amendment 116 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7