It all happened so quickly. Donald Trump is in office, and Viktor Orbán now seems poised to clear the way for the extension of economic sanctions against Russia. Poland, which currently holds the EU Council Presidency, plans to add the rollover to the agenda for the EU ambassadors’ meeting on Friday, expecting a consensus to be reached.
So, no nail-biting until Jan. 31. The foreign ministers can formally approve the six-month extension at their regular meeting on Monday, just in time.
Before Christmas, Hungary’s Prime Minister hinted that extending the sanctions was no foregone conclusion and that he would wait for Donald Trump’s inauguration. That moment has now passed, and the US President has promptly revised one of his campaign promises. He no longer claims he will end Russia’s war against Ukraine in 24 hours but instead gives himself six months to achieve this.
Trump appears to be aiming for a summit with Vladimir Putin to strike a deal. It would not have looked good if Hungary had collapsed Europe’s sanctions regime with its veto beforehand. After all, the US President wants to meet his Russian counterpart from a position of strength.
The lesson is clear: Anyone banking on Trump needs to be flexible. Orbán believed his American idol’s campaign promises and likely held misguided hopes for a swift end to the Russia sanctions despised in Budapest. But Trump has no friends, only interests. It’s possible that Orbán will learn this lesson again in the future, especially regarding upcoming US tariffs or Hungary’s controversial economic ties with China.
In an Analysis by my colleague János Allenbach-Ammann, you can read about what else Donald Trump is planning and what Ursula von der Leyen had to say about the US President at the World Economic Forum.
At the World Economic Forum in Davos yesterday, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen gave a speech that can be interpreted as a response to Donald Trump’s inauguration speech, even if she did not mention the new US President by name. “Our message to the world is simple: If there are mutual benefits in sight, we are ready to work with you,” said von der Leyen, adding: “Europe is open to economic cooperation.”
She explained the recent progress made in negotiations with Switzerland, the Mercosur states, and Mexico by saying that third countries are looking for trustworthy partners in times of intensified competition between the major powers. “We play by the rules. Our deals have no pitfalls,” von der Leyen advertised.
While Trump is threatening high tariffs, von der Leyen announced that she wants to “upgrade” the partnership with India and also “strive for mutual benefit” with China. There may even be an opportunity to “expand trade and investment relations” with China. However, there are currently no concrete plans for this in the Commission.
However, the first sign of whether the EU Commission wants to realign its China policy could come soon. By the end of the week, the EU Commission must decide how it intends to proceed in the WTO case against China, which was launched in response to Chinese retaliatory measures against Lithuanian companies.
Von der Leyen’s speech focused less than in previous years on European values, which the EU wants to cultivate in its economic relations, and more on economic interests. The part of the speech on the USA also focused on common interests rather than values.
Meanwhile, in the US, it is only slowly becoming clearer what exactly the Trump administration has in mind in terms of international economic policy. In a memo, Trump ordered reports to examine various measures against the US economic deficit. The reports are due by April 1. However, this does not mean that the USA’s trading partners can breathe easy until then. On Monday evening, Trump had already speculated about a 25 percent tariff on products from Mexico and Canada, which could be introduced as early as Feb. 1.
In addition to trade policy, international tax policy has also already come under Trump’s scrutiny. In a decree, the US President confirmed the USA’s withdrawal from the global agreement on minimum taxation of companies. The agreement sets a minimum profit tax of 15 percent. It also allows countries to tax globally active corporations additionally if they are taxed at less than 15 percent in the country where they are headquartered.
This extraterritoriality is a thorn in the side of the US President, who therefore does not want to leave it at just pulling out of the agreement. He has ordered his government to examine how it can take action against tax practices in other countries that have an extraterritorial or “disproportionate” impact on US companies. The report is expected within sixty days.
With this broad memo, Trump is not only targeting those countries that implement the global minimum tax agreement. He is also threatening countries that have introduced or want to introduce a digital tax.
Pasquale Tridico, Chairman of the European Parliament’s Tax Committee, called the US withdrawal a “significant setback.” However, he then added in a press release: “Trump’s threat of retaliation should not deter us.”
Economic Affairs Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis said on Tuesday that he regretted Trump’s decision and that the Commission wanted to discuss this issue with the new US administration. According to Commission spokespeople, the fact that the Commission President has not yet been given an appointment with Trump is a complicating factor in this regard.
Resistance is forming in Brussels against the demands of European Christian Democrats at the weekend to suspend and greatly simplify the EU’s sustainability reporting obligations for companies. In her speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos on Tuesday, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen held out the prospect of “significantly simplifying the regulations for sustainable financing instruments and due diligence obligations.”
However, the CDU politician is counting on the support of the Social Democrats and Greens in the European Parliament. They warn against “deregulation” and fear that opening up key laws of the Green Deal from the previous legislature would jeopardize the socio-ecological transformation.
The line of conflict also runs through the Commission itself. The authority is working on the so-called Omnibus Directive planned for the end of February, which aims to streamline reporting obligations on supply chains (CSDDD), sustainability (CSRD), and financial taxonomy. Liberal Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné and the Commissioner responsible for cutting red tape, Valdis Dombrovskis (EPP), are pushing for the legal texts to be amended in order to substantially simplify implementation for the companies affected.
“If we would not be opening any legislation, we would not need an omnibus,” said Dombrovskis on the sidelines of the meeting of EU finance ministers on Tuesday. In addition to the CSRD, CSDDD, and taxonomy, other elements should be included in the omnibus.
However, Socialist Vice-President Teresa Ribera does not want to undo the laws that have been passed, according to reports in Brussels. She considers it sufficient to limit herself to implementing provisions and to eliminate ambiguities with the help of delegated acts and guidelines.
Green MEP Michael Bloss, for example, had previously criticized the EPP and CDU leader Friedrich Merz for wanting to “tear down the legal framework with a wrecking ball,” thereby creating uncertainty for long-term investments. The mood among the Social Democrats is also heated because of the proposal. They fear that social standards could be dismantled through the back door as a result of the proposal.
The Council of Member States is also divided. They are all committed to reducing bureaucracy. But some countries have already transposed the EU directives into national law. If they turn around, they fear for their credibility. The Polish Council Presidency, on the other hand, is exerting pressure and wants to put cutting red tape on the agenda of every meeting of the finance ministers.
The EPP proposals did not meet with unreserved approval from associations and companies either. The environmental NGO WWF criticized Merz, who threatened to “walk over our future with a lawnmower.” Climate and nature protection are “not a bureaucratic luxury.”
Pierre-François Thaler, Co-CEO of the sustainability rating agency EcoVadis, would welcome greater consistency between the various reporting obligations. However, Thaler told Table.Briefings that a “two-year pause could lead to more uncertainty for companies.” In particular, those companies “that have already invested in resources and processes to prepare for compliance” would be at a disadvantage.
Katharina Reuter from the German Sustainable Business Association told Table.Briefings that “banks, investors and insurers would request the data from the companies.”
A spokeswoman for the Association of German Banks also emphasized the importance of CSRD reports in particular on behalf of the German banking industry. Where possible, they should be a “key source” for “sustainability-related requirements” and “supervisory requirements for risk management.” A postponement would widen the existing data gap at financial institutions. On the other hand, the banking industry welcomes improved transparency and comparability of data through the upcoming Omnibus Act.
Oliver Zander, Managing Director of the employers’ association Gesamtmetall, on the other hand, sees a suspension of the EU laws as “right and absolutely necessary.” He also argues in favor of planning security for companies. However, Zander does not see this as being provided by a postponement, but rather by a hasty introduction of the reporting obligations. “It takes time to create a new paragraph, such as a negative list for non-EU companies,” Zander told Table.Briefings. “Otherwise it will end up in chaos again, as with the deforestation regulation at the end of last year.”
At its leadership meeting last weekend, the EPP also spoke out in favor of postponing the implementation of the CBAM. Philipp Jäger, who researches European climate and economic policy at the Jacques Delors Centre at the Hertie School in Berlin, is critical of the proposal: CBAM is essentially an instrument to protect domestic industry if the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) results in higher CO2 costs for the economy.
“Delaying CBAM from an EPP perspective would therefore only make sense in combination with a later phase-out of free CO2 certificates for industry,” says Jäger. He sees organizing a majority for further free allocation of emission allowances to the industry as a difficult goal to achieve. In addition, the EU’s climate targets would be “concretely” jeopardized.
When asked, the EPP said that the party was primarily concerned with streamlining bureaucracy. “The number of data points should be reduced.” In addition, the de minimis limits should be increased. “We also need to focus on achieving basic protection against CO2 leakage and creating a more pragmatic structure.” With János Allenbach-Ammann, Lukas Knigge, Caspar Dohmen, and Alina Leimbach
The European Parliament is today debating controversial contracts between the EU Commission and environmental NGOs concluded by the Commission’s executive agency, CINEA, under the LIFE program of the Multiannual Financial Framework. The LIFE program is the EU’s funding instrument for environmental and climate action measures.
In the course of the discharge of the Commission for the 2023 financial year, the head of the Budgetary Control Committee, Niclas Herbst (CDU), is expected to sharply criticize the content of some funding agreements. This is obvious from his statements in the hearings on the parliamentary discharge procedure, which has now been completed.
In particular, the rapporteur is likely to criticize the fact that the Commission has commissioned and paid NGOs to lobby the European Parliament. Herbst is likely to note that this behavior is probably in contradiction to the principle of separation of powers. He is firmly convinced that EU taxpayers’ money should not be spent on lobbying EU institutions.
The Commission has promised to review the contracts between CINEA and NGOs in the LIFE program. In the meantime, the authority has instructed the NGOs to stop lobbying. Nevertheless, Herbst does not agree with the handling of the case: The measures were not sufficient to mitigate the risks, he said. The Commission had provided the NGOs with new guidelines in 2024 in response to criticism from the European Parliament. However, these were not enough to prevent recipients of EU funds from using them to influence the legislature.
Herbst is also annoyed at how slowly the Commission is reacting. Although the Parliament had already drawn the Commission’s attention to the shortcomings in February 2024, the non-binding new guidelines had remained in place. So far, new rules on how the funds totaling EUR 5.4 billion from the LIFE program are to be used by the recipients have only been announced. The Commission must ensure that EU funds are not used for lobbying.
Herbst also reportedly points out that, according to the European Court of Auditors’ special report on the EU Transparency Register, 34% of registered NGOs do not disclose their financial supporters. The NGOs avoided transparency by declaring that they were only pursuing their own interests or the collective interests of their members. Herbst is likely to call on the Commission to close this loophole.
Among the NGOs that claim not to pursue commercial interests and receive EU funding from the LIFE program is the NGO Client Earth. In the EU Transparency Register, Client Earth shows the Commission grant of EUR 350,000 for 2023 for the last completed financial year. According to its own entry, Client Earth’s total budget amounted to EUR 40,483,260. Where the money comes from is not broken down there.
A spokesperson for Client Earth said: “Client Earth is committed to transparency towards the public and its donors.” Client Earth therefore “discloses its financial sources even beyond the requirements of the EU Transparency Register and other legal regulations.” The annual report and financial reports with the most important donors and donations are available on its own transparency page.
The agreement between the NGO European Federation for Transport and Environment (T&E) in the LIFE program is one of the contracts under criticism. T&E received EUR 700,000 in grants from the Commission under the program in 2023. The funding agreement, which Table.Briefings was able to view, is entitled “zero emission and circular cars” in the so-called Work Package. The aim is to “reform EU legislation (fleet legislation) and company car taxation in the member states to achieve 100 percent zero-emission vehicles in company car fleets in all major EU markets by 2030.”
According to “Advocacy” (lobbying), the contract literally states with regard to the year 2024: “With the elections to the European Parliament, we will inform candidates and the media and incorporate [the content] into the election programs as well as into the hearings of the designated Commissioners in Parliament. Whereby we will focus on the political measures needed to achieve zero-emission and circular cars.”
Concrete evidence of the lobbying activities was also agreed upon. After the keyword “expected results,” the contract states: “T&E will have at least five meetings with MEPs to discuss our recommendations for the next mandate.” The Council should also be lobbied: “We will also contribute to the Strategic Agenda of the European Council 2024 to 2029.” T&E was also obliged by the Commission to include questions from MEPs at the hearings: “T&E proposes questions to at least ten MEPs in advance of the Commissioners’ hearings.”
Commenting on the contracts, T&E Executive Director William Todts said: “T&E is completely independent of the European Commission and any other external institutions or funders.” The strategy and annual work plan would be approved by the 49 member organizations in 24 European countries. “T&E only accepts funding that does not compromise our independence and autonomy.” The operating grants that the organization receives from the LIFE program help to ensure that the opinions of the members can be articulated at EU level.
With its work, T&E is creating a counterweight to the powerful automotive, airline and oil lobbies. “The LIFE program – the European Union’s most important funding instrument for environmental and climate action – provides EUR 15.6 million annually for operating grants to NGOs.” In contrast, the 50 largest lobbying organizations would have spent a total of almost EUR 200 million on lobbying in the EU in 2024.
It all happened so quickly. Donald Trump is in office, and Viktor Orbán now seems poised to clear the way for the extension of economic sanctions against Russia. Poland, which currently holds the EU Council Presidency, plans to add the rollover to the agenda for the EU ambassadors’ meeting on Friday, expecting a consensus to be reached.
So, no nail-biting until Jan. 31. The foreign ministers can formally approve the six-month extension at their regular meeting on Monday, just in time.
Before Christmas, Hungary’s Prime Minister hinted that extending the sanctions was no foregone conclusion and that he would wait for Donald Trump’s inauguration. That moment has now passed, and the US President has promptly revised one of his campaign promises. He no longer claims he will end Russia’s war against Ukraine in 24 hours but instead gives himself six months to achieve this.
Trump appears to be aiming for a summit with Vladimir Putin to strike a deal. It would not have looked good if Hungary had collapsed Europe’s sanctions regime with its veto beforehand. After all, the US President wants to meet his Russian counterpart from a position of strength.
The lesson is clear: Anyone banking on Trump needs to be flexible. Orbán believed his American idol’s campaign promises and likely held misguided hopes for a swift end to the Russia sanctions despised in Budapest. But Trump has no friends, only interests. It’s possible that Orbán will learn this lesson again in the future, especially regarding upcoming US tariffs or Hungary’s controversial economic ties with China.
In an Analysis by my colleague János Allenbach-Ammann, you can read about what else Donald Trump is planning and what Ursula von der Leyen had to say about the US President at the World Economic Forum.
At the World Economic Forum in Davos yesterday, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen gave a speech that can be interpreted as a response to Donald Trump’s inauguration speech, even if she did not mention the new US President by name. “Our message to the world is simple: If there are mutual benefits in sight, we are ready to work with you,” said von der Leyen, adding: “Europe is open to economic cooperation.”
She explained the recent progress made in negotiations with Switzerland, the Mercosur states, and Mexico by saying that third countries are looking for trustworthy partners in times of intensified competition between the major powers. “We play by the rules. Our deals have no pitfalls,” von der Leyen advertised.
While Trump is threatening high tariffs, von der Leyen announced that she wants to “upgrade” the partnership with India and also “strive for mutual benefit” with China. There may even be an opportunity to “expand trade and investment relations” with China. However, there are currently no concrete plans for this in the Commission.
However, the first sign of whether the EU Commission wants to realign its China policy could come soon. By the end of the week, the EU Commission must decide how it intends to proceed in the WTO case against China, which was launched in response to Chinese retaliatory measures against Lithuanian companies.
Von der Leyen’s speech focused less than in previous years on European values, which the EU wants to cultivate in its economic relations, and more on economic interests. The part of the speech on the USA also focused on common interests rather than values.
Meanwhile, in the US, it is only slowly becoming clearer what exactly the Trump administration has in mind in terms of international economic policy. In a memo, Trump ordered reports to examine various measures against the US economic deficit. The reports are due by April 1. However, this does not mean that the USA’s trading partners can breathe easy until then. On Monday evening, Trump had already speculated about a 25 percent tariff on products from Mexico and Canada, which could be introduced as early as Feb. 1.
In addition to trade policy, international tax policy has also already come under Trump’s scrutiny. In a decree, the US President confirmed the USA’s withdrawal from the global agreement on minimum taxation of companies. The agreement sets a minimum profit tax of 15 percent. It also allows countries to tax globally active corporations additionally if they are taxed at less than 15 percent in the country where they are headquartered.
This extraterritoriality is a thorn in the side of the US President, who therefore does not want to leave it at just pulling out of the agreement. He has ordered his government to examine how it can take action against tax practices in other countries that have an extraterritorial or “disproportionate” impact on US companies. The report is expected within sixty days.
With this broad memo, Trump is not only targeting those countries that implement the global minimum tax agreement. He is also threatening countries that have introduced or want to introduce a digital tax.
Pasquale Tridico, Chairman of the European Parliament’s Tax Committee, called the US withdrawal a “significant setback.” However, he then added in a press release: “Trump’s threat of retaliation should not deter us.”
Economic Affairs Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis said on Tuesday that he regretted Trump’s decision and that the Commission wanted to discuss this issue with the new US administration. According to Commission spokespeople, the fact that the Commission President has not yet been given an appointment with Trump is a complicating factor in this regard.
Resistance is forming in Brussels against the demands of European Christian Democrats at the weekend to suspend and greatly simplify the EU’s sustainability reporting obligations for companies. In her speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos on Tuesday, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen held out the prospect of “significantly simplifying the regulations for sustainable financing instruments and due diligence obligations.”
However, the CDU politician is counting on the support of the Social Democrats and Greens in the European Parliament. They warn against “deregulation” and fear that opening up key laws of the Green Deal from the previous legislature would jeopardize the socio-ecological transformation.
The line of conflict also runs through the Commission itself. The authority is working on the so-called Omnibus Directive planned for the end of February, which aims to streamline reporting obligations on supply chains (CSDDD), sustainability (CSRD), and financial taxonomy. Liberal Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné and the Commissioner responsible for cutting red tape, Valdis Dombrovskis (EPP), are pushing for the legal texts to be amended in order to substantially simplify implementation for the companies affected.
“If we would not be opening any legislation, we would not need an omnibus,” said Dombrovskis on the sidelines of the meeting of EU finance ministers on Tuesday. In addition to the CSRD, CSDDD, and taxonomy, other elements should be included in the omnibus.
However, Socialist Vice-President Teresa Ribera does not want to undo the laws that have been passed, according to reports in Brussels. She considers it sufficient to limit herself to implementing provisions and to eliminate ambiguities with the help of delegated acts and guidelines.
Green MEP Michael Bloss, for example, had previously criticized the EPP and CDU leader Friedrich Merz for wanting to “tear down the legal framework with a wrecking ball,” thereby creating uncertainty for long-term investments. The mood among the Social Democrats is also heated because of the proposal. They fear that social standards could be dismantled through the back door as a result of the proposal.
The Council of Member States is also divided. They are all committed to reducing bureaucracy. But some countries have already transposed the EU directives into national law. If they turn around, they fear for their credibility. The Polish Council Presidency, on the other hand, is exerting pressure and wants to put cutting red tape on the agenda of every meeting of the finance ministers.
The EPP proposals did not meet with unreserved approval from associations and companies either. The environmental NGO WWF criticized Merz, who threatened to “walk over our future with a lawnmower.” Climate and nature protection are “not a bureaucratic luxury.”
Pierre-François Thaler, Co-CEO of the sustainability rating agency EcoVadis, would welcome greater consistency between the various reporting obligations. However, Thaler told Table.Briefings that a “two-year pause could lead to more uncertainty for companies.” In particular, those companies “that have already invested in resources and processes to prepare for compliance” would be at a disadvantage.
Katharina Reuter from the German Sustainable Business Association told Table.Briefings that “banks, investors and insurers would request the data from the companies.”
A spokeswoman for the Association of German Banks also emphasized the importance of CSRD reports in particular on behalf of the German banking industry. Where possible, they should be a “key source” for “sustainability-related requirements” and “supervisory requirements for risk management.” A postponement would widen the existing data gap at financial institutions. On the other hand, the banking industry welcomes improved transparency and comparability of data through the upcoming Omnibus Act.
Oliver Zander, Managing Director of the employers’ association Gesamtmetall, on the other hand, sees a suspension of the EU laws as “right and absolutely necessary.” He also argues in favor of planning security for companies. However, Zander does not see this as being provided by a postponement, but rather by a hasty introduction of the reporting obligations. “It takes time to create a new paragraph, such as a negative list for non-EU companies,” Zander told Table.Briefings. “Otherwise it will end up in chaos again, as with the deforestation regulation at the end of last year.”
At its leadership meeting last weekend, the EPP also spoke out in favor of postponing the implementation of the CBAM. Philipp Jäger, who researches European climate and economic policy at the Jacques Delors Centre at the Hertie School in Berlin, is critical of the proposal: CBAM is essentially an instrument to protect domestic industry if the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) results in higher CO2 costs for the economy.
“Delaying CBAM from an EPP perspective would therefore only make sense in combination with a later phase-out of free CO2 certificates for industry,” says Jäger. He sees organizing a majority for further free allocation of emission allowances to the industry as a difficult goal to achieve. In addition, the EU’s climate targets would be “concretely” jeopardized.
When asked, the EPP said that the party was primarily concerned with streamlining bureaucracy. “The number of data points should be reduced.” In addition, the de minimis limits should be increased. “We also need to focus on achieving basic protection against CO2 leakage and creating a more pragmatic structure.” With János Allenbach-Ammann, Lukas Knigge, Caspar Dohmen, and Alina Leimbach
The European Parliament is today debating controversial contracts between the EU Commission and environmental NGOs concluded by the Commission’s executive agency, CINEA, under the LIFE program of the Multiannual Financial Framework. The LIFE program is the EU’s funding instrument for environmental and climate action measures.
In the course of the discharge of the Commission for the 2023 financial year, the head of the Budgetary Control Committee, Niclas Herbst (CDU), is expected to sharply criticize the content of some funding agreements. This is obvious from his statements in the hearings on the parliamentary discharge procedure, which has now been completed.
In particular, the rapporteur is likely to criticize the fact that the Commission has commissioned and paid NGOs to lobby the European Parliament. Herbst is likely to note that this behavior is probably in contradiction to the principle of separation of powers. He is firmly convinced that EU taxpayers’ money should not be spent on lobbying EU institutions.
The Commission has promised to review the contracts between CINEA and NGOs in the LIFE program. In the meantime, the authority has instructed the NGOs to stop lobbying. Nevertheless, Herbst does not agree with the handling of the case: The measures were not sufficient to mitigate the risks, he said. The Commission had provided the NGOs with new guidelines in 2024 in response to criticism from the European Parliament. However, these were not enough to prevent recipients of EU funds from using them to influence the legislature.
Herbst is also annoyed at how slowly the Commission is reacting. Although the Parliament had already drawn the Commission’s attention to the shortcomings in February 2024, the non-binding new guidelines had remained in place. So far, new rules on how the funds totaling EUR 5.4 billion from the LIFE program are to be used by the recipients have only been announced. The Commission must ensure that EU funds are not used for lobbying.
Herbst also reportedly points out that, according to the European Court of Auditors’ special report on the EU Transparency Register, 34% of registered NGOs do not disclose their financial supporters. The NGOs avoided transparency by declaring that they were only pursuing their own interests or the collective interests of their members. Herbst is likely to call on the Commission to close this loophole.
Among the NGOs that claim not to pursue commercial interests and receive EU funding from the LIFE program is the NGO Client Earth. In the EU Transparency Register, Client Earth shows the Commission grant of EUR 350,000 for 2023 for the last completed financial year. According to its own entry, Client Earth’s total budget amounted to EUR 40,483,260. Where the money comes from is not broken down there.
A spokesperson for Client Earth said: “Client Earth is committed to transparency towards the public and its donors.” Client Earth therefore “discloses its financial sources even beyond the requirements of the EU Transparency Register and other legal regulations.” The annual report and financial reports with the most important donors and donations are available on its own transparency page.
The agreement between the NGO European Federation for Transport and Environment (T&E) in the LIFE program is one of the contracts under criticism. T&E received EUR 700,000 in grants from the Commission under the program in 2023. The funding agreement, which Table.Briefings was able to view, is entitled “zero emission and circular cars” in the so-called Work Package. The aim is to “reform EU legislation (fleet legislation) and company car taxation in the member states to achieve 100 percent zero-emission vehicles in company car fleets in all major EU markets by 2030.”
According to “Advocacy” (lobbying), the contract literally states with regard to the year 2024: “With the elections to the European Parliament, we will inform candidates and the media and incorporate [the content] into the election programs as well as into the hearings of the designated Commissioners in Parliament. Whereby we will focus on the political measures needed to achieve zero-emission and circular cars.”
Concrete evidence of the lobbying activities was also agreed upon. After the keyword “expected results,” the contract states: “T&E will have at least five meetings with MEPs to discuss our recommendations for the next mandate.” The Council should also be lobbied: “We will also contribute to the Strategic Agenda of the European Council 2024 to 2029.” T&E was also obliged by the Commission to include questions from MEPs at the hearings: “T&E proposes questions to at least ten MEPs in advance of the Commissioners’ hearings.”
Commenting on the contracts, T&E Executive Director William Todts said: “T&E is completely independent of the European Commission and any other external institutions or funders.” The strategy and annual work plan would be approved by the 49 member organizations in 24 European countries. “T&E only accepts funding that does not compromise our independence and autonomy.” The operating grants that the organization receives from the LIFE program help to ensure that the opinions of the members can be articulated at EU level.
With its work, T&E is creating a counterweight to the powerful automotive, airline and oil lobbies. “The LIFE program – the European Union’s most important funding instrument for environmental and climate action – provides EUR 15.6 million annually for operating grants to NGOs.” In contrast, the 50 largest lobbying organizations would have spent a total of almost EUR 200 million on lobbying in the EU in 2024.
