29-01-2025
Last November, the European Commission informed environmental NGOs that the money they receive from the EU Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE) could no longer be used for advocacy and lobbying activities. This change, led by the European People’s Party (EPP) and widely backed by far-right politicians, is in line with the EPP’s broader election pledge to curb the introduction of environment and sustainability regulations, including delaying the entry into force of the new anti-deforestation rules, lowering the protection status of wolves, and a plan to simplify sustainability reporting obligations for companies (we expect the Omnibus Act by February 26).
‘LIFE’ provides €5.4 billion in funding between 2021 and 2027, and is instrumental to facilitating the transition to a sustainable and circular economy and to protecting, restoring and improving the quality of the environment.
The share of European funds allocated to environmental NGOs and other civil society groups, such as WWF, Friends of the Earth, and ClientEarth, as well as many smaller charities, amounts to €15.6 million per year, which represents a tiny fraction (the 0.006 percent) of the EU’s annual budget.
These funds are available in the form of operating grants, which finance the running costs of an organisation pursuing an objective that supports EU policies. In stark contrast, the 50 companies with the highest lobbying budgets spent almost €200 million lobbying the EU in 2024, giving rise to questions about who shapes EU policy.
The new restrictions apply to active lobbying activities targeting EU officials and institutions that were previously considered acceptable. As revealed by POLITICO, the precluded activities include ‘organising meetings or providing advocacy material’ to specific EU institutions or officials, or ‘identifying specific members or officials of an institution to evaluate or describe their positions, or to discuss specific political content or outcome’.
By coming across as a veiled attempt to restrict the operational space of NGOs, this policy chance challenges the rationale pursued by EU funds to civil society, that is to level the playing field when it comes to access to policymakers – argues Alberto Alemanno, founder of The Good Lobby and Professor of EU Law at HEC Paris.
Balancing Influence
Historically, EU funding of civil society aims to ensure the participation of a wide range of stakeholders in public debates and decision-making processes. This contributes to operationalising the principle of political equality under Article 9 TFEU thus facilitating the right of EU citizens to ‘participate in the democratic life of the Union’ (Article 10(3) TEU).
Through the LIFE programme, the EU supports numerous environmental and climate projects and provides operating grants to NGOs that raise public awareness and contribute to discussions by coordinating citizens’ views. This mechanism is essential for balancing the influence of industrial lobbies and strengthening exchanges with civil society.
However, restricting the use of LIFE funds for advocacy activities would represent a marked and troubling shift in the Commission’s policy. Indeed, this move could significantly limit the ability of NGOs to counterbalance and challenge corporate interests. It will also weaken environmental organisations that are heavily dependent on this funding at a time when the entire EU commitment towards environmental protection as embodied by the Green Deal is crumbling.
As a result, pressure on the Commission is increasing to re-examine its NGO funding strategy. At a time when NGOs are expected to play a crucial role in efforts to tackle environmental challenges, limiting their capacity for advocacy activities not only undermines their work but also conflicts with the Commission’s broader commitments to sustainability and protecting democracy.
This sudden policy change in relation to NGO funding, similar to the forthcoming Omnibus Simplification package – as announced in the leaked (twice) Competitiveness Compass -, may soon be legally challenged before the EU Courts.