Global governance: funding the NGO monster
Latest figures reveal it is now BBC to be renamed the Brussels Broadcasting Corproration – BBC has a pro EU pro immigration pro multiculturalism agenda and latest figures give donations from EU to the BBC of £22,382,997
With no fanfare at all, the European Commission has slipped out the 2013 figures for its Financial Transparency System, a searchable database of grant funding to third parties, including NGOs.
The database is a goldmine of information, telling us, for instance, that the EU paid the BBC €6,100,987 last year, Friends of the Earth (in all its incarnations) €4,188,230, WWF €5,344,641 and the RSPB €3,802,544. What is also of very great interest is that the EU subsidised UN institutions to the tune of nearly €140 million.
All this and much will be the subject of further reporting and analysis, but once again it brings to light the huge amount of taxpayer funding going to unaccountable NGOs, and especially (but not exclusively) climate change advocacy groups.
In 2013, though, there is a new entrant to the listings – one which has not appeared before on the EU list of recipients. This is the World Resources Institute (WRI), which has been given €1,500,000 of our money for “designing the 2015 global climate change agreement”.
What is especially interesting about this is that the WRI is a United States organisation, established in 1982 under Delaware tax laws, with its head office in Washington DC. But, despite a considerable amount of its activity being devoted to lobbying the US government, it has a huge international dimension, receiving most of its multi-million income from governments, their agencies and from multi-national corporations.
Of its $51,595,932 income for 2013, in addition to the EU finding, it gets $8,600,000 from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, $4,918,421 from the Agency for Development Cooperation of Norway, $4,890,000 from the US Agency for International Development, $2,987,337 from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, $2,041,263 from the Federal Ministry for the Environment of Germany and $2,000,000 from the Agency for Development and Cooperation of Switzerland.
We also see the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway donating $488,188, the Agency for International Cooperation of Germany giving $372,455, the Development Agency of France giving $262,160, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Ireland offering $514,155 and the US Department of Energy $375,000.
Not to be left out, we also see the UK’s aid ministry, DFID give $2,041,246 to WRI, adding to our contribution via the EU, while the FCO tops up the funding with another $240,351. Including our contribution via the EU, that brings the UK total to about €2.5 million.
Interestingly, Big Oil is right in there as well, with the Shell Foundation contributing $1,000,000, topped up by the Shell Oil Company USA with another $350,000. Other corporates are represented, with the United Technologies Corporation giving $300,000, FedEx, $850,000, KPMG East Africa Limited giving $865,390, McKinsey & Company, Inc, $270,000 and Goldman Sachs $250,000.
But illustrating the incestuous relationship between the NGO “community”, we see several of the “usual suspects” on the list. The European Climate Foundation turns up with $879,317, the ClimateWorks Foundation with $533,842, the Energy Foundation with $330,000, the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC with $325,000, Climate and Development Knowledge Network with $251,911, the Climate and Land Use Alliance with $497,941 and Water Conservation International $249,697.
Of global agencies, the United Nations Environment Programme is also represented, contributing $542,990. The World Bank gives $366,076. Charities are also represented, with the Robertson Foundation giving $500,000 and the Rockefeller Foundation $326,000.
Altogether, the top 43 donors – governments, corporates, charities and NGOS, contribute $43,688,366, amounting to 85 percent of the 2013 revenue.
The question is, of course, is why these bodies, with so many governments involved, are giving money to a private US charity, for activities which include preparing the ground for an inter-governmental agreement in 2015, fronted by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change secretariat.
Accountable to no-one but the US tax authorities, established under Delaware state law, this “charity” should have no role whatsoever in framing agreements between governments the nature of which potentially cost taxpayers billions, the beneficiaries of which are charities of this nature.
In particular, our government and the EU have no business funding such organisations, their very existence representing the darker side of globalisation, where our collective fates are increasingly determined by such unaccountable, faceless bodies, exerting more power and influence than even governments themselves.
Christopher Hope By Christopher Hope, Senior Political Correspondent10:00PM GMT 01 Feb 2012 Comments128 Comments
The news prompted MPs to raise questions about the BBC’s impartiality when its journalists report on events in the EU.
The BBC admitted in a letter to a Tory MP that it has received nearly £3million in grant money from the European Union over the past four years.
Other grants totalling £16million came from local authorities across the UK. The money was spent on “research and development projects”.
The broadcaster also disclosed that its commercial arm BBC Worldwide borrowed over £141million from the European Investment Bank since 2003. Of that figure £30million is still due to be repaid by the end of May this year.
These figures are disclosed in the commercial arm’s annual report, while the BBC’s annual report does not make clear where the grant money comes from.
Tories would rip up BBC charter 19 Oct 2009
Mark Thompson’s successor is tipped as Helen Boaden 24 Jan 2012
Wage cut for BBC Director General 23 Jan 2012
BBC viewers ‘face new licence fee to watch huge TV archive’ 13 Jan 2012
Medical ice machines Sponsored by Philips
Conservative MP Karl McCartney, who obtained the information through a Parliamentary Question, said he was concerned that receiving the money could affect the way the BBC covers events in the European Union.
He said: “People will quite rightly continue to question what influence the EU exerts over the BBC, particularly in the light of EU loans and grants, and the BBC’s often one-sided coverage of matters relating to Europe.
“This and other examples of BBC bias and left wing leaning politicised reporting worry and concern both me and my colleagues.”
Conservative MP Dominic Raab said that this “financial dependence of the BBC on the EU casts a shadow over its editorial independence”.
He added: “The BBC covers EU issues on a daily basis, so people will understandably – and legitimately – question whether there is a link between the money it receives and the reporting it broadcasts.
“Whether or not there is an actual conflict of interest, it risks undermining their perceived impartiality.”
Priti Patel, a Tory MP, said that the figures “explains much of their subjective, pro-European commentary and hostility to those who critic the EU”. She asked: “How can a public service broadcaster demonstrate genuine impartially on European issues if it in receipt of EU funds?”
The news comes after questions have been raised about the uncritical tone of the BBC’s coverage of the EU. In 2010, Jonathan Charles, the BBC’s former Brussels correspondent, admitted he and the BBC had got carried away by the launch of the Euro currency in 2002.
He said: ‘Even now, I can remember the great air of excitement. It did seem like the start of a new era… for a few brief days, I suppose I and everyone else suspended their scepticism and got caught up in that euphoria.”
An analysis by Eurosceptic thinktank Global Britain found that over the past six years, just 0.04 per cent of the coverage on Radio Four’s flagship Today programme was devoted to the potential benefits of withdrawing from the EU.
A BBC spokesman said: “Each year in our Annual Report we disclose the total income received from a variety of grants. Grants from the EU make up a relatively small proportion of the total figure. The vast majority of EU grants are used for research and development projects.
“BBC News does not receive any grant funding from the EU. Impartiality and balanced reporting is and always will be of paramount importance for the BBC.”
BBC Worldwide, which buys programmes from the BBC and markets them around the world, said there were “no editorial conditions of any sort” attached to the loans it had received from the European Investment Bank.
The BBC borrowed money from the EIB because it was able to lend at a cheaper rate than other commercial institutions.
A BBC Worldwide spokesman said: “It represents funding for BBC Worldwide, the commercial arm of the BBC, which is self-financing and has absolutely no access to licence fee funds.
“This loan was obtained on a fully commercial basis and has no editorial impact on the BBC’s output. Just who do they think they are kidding.
The millions in EU funding the BBC tried to hide
132 comments Miles Goslett 28 February 2014 17:41
Over the last three years the BBC has secretly obtained millions of pounds in grants from the European Union. Licence fee payers might assume that the Corporation would have been compelled to disclose the source of this money in its annual reports, but they bear no trace of it specifically. In the latest set of accounts, for example, these funds are simply referred to as ‘other grant income’.
Instead of making an open declaration, the BBC’s successful lobbying for this money had to be prised out of it using a Freedom of Information (FoI) request lodged for The Spectator, proving that there was never any danger of the state broadcaster’s bosses volunteering it willingly.
The FoI response confirms that BBC staff applied for, and accepted, about £3 million of EU funds between April 2011 and November 2013, most of which has been spent on unspecified ‘research and development’ projects, with the remaining £1 million spent on programming.
Next to the £3.65 billion tax-free income that the BBC receives each year via the licence fee, £3 million is, admittedly, a mere speck of dust – just 0.8 per cent of its annual guaranteed revenue and, obviously, even less than that when spread over 36 months.
However, the size of these EU gifts is arguably irrelevant, even though they are indicative of the BBC’s seemingly unquenchable thirst for public money. What is undeniably true is that the BBC has acted with characteristic slyness by concealing that it ever requested, let alone received, this European cash, suggesting that it is uneasy about the public being aware of its financial arrangements.
With the European elections only three months away, the timing of this disclosure is certainly unhelpful to the BBC, fuelling longstanding pro-EU bias concerns.
Rob Wilson MP, an aide to the Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne, says that he believes evidence of the BBC receiving any EU money leaves it open to attack because being on its payroll risks feeding the perception that is incapable of reporting objectively on European affairs. Mr Wilson also questions why the BBC needed to go ‘cap in hand’ to the EU for funds in the first place when its enviably secure financial position allows it to outgun commercial rivals in so many spheres.
‘The whole point of the licence fee is to protect the BBC’s political independence and impartiality by providing it with a source of funding that is outside the hands of governments and politicians. Thanks to this FoI response, we now learn that it has been going cap in hand to the EU for millions of pounds on the quiet over the last few years. Such outrageous flouting of the principles on which the BBC is based and funded will only promote cynicism about its political impartiality and lead to a loss of trust in the BBC’s independence.’
He adds that he intends to write to part-time BBC Trust chairman Chris Patten about this matter.
But despite Patten being paid £110,000 per year to represent the interests of licence payers, it is hard to imagine that the dripping wet former EU Commissioner and Euro enthusiast will pay much attention.
In view of the fact that he stands to benefit from a fantastically generous EU pension – which Ukip deputy leader Paul Nuttall estimates to be worth £100,000 per year for the rest of his life – thanks to his 47 months on the gravy train, Patten is surely part of the problem when it comes to questions about the BBC and Europe.
Indeed, his slippery and unaccountable nature reflects rather neatly all that is wrong with it. With trademark arrogance, Patten is currently refusing to appear in front of the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee to answer questions about the BBC’s coverage of Europe. He has rebuffed three invitations to do so knowing that, under parliamentary rules, his status as a member of the Lords means he cannot be forced to appear in front of an MPs’ committee. Could there be a more perfect illustration of the BBC – and portly Patten – having their cake and eating it?
In the FoI response, the BBC refuses to name any of the ‘research and development’ projects or television programmes on which it spent the EU grant money.
This, apparently, is information that’s far too sensitive for mere licence payers to be told about.
All it says by way of explanation is that the funds come from two separate sources – the EU Framework Programme for Research and Development; and the European Regional Development Fund. It admits that during the financial year 2010/11 it accepted £956,000 from the first of these funds and that during the following financial year it was given a further £435,000 for the same purpose.
During the first half of the current financial year, between April and November 2013, it was awarded a third EU research and development grant worth £812,000.
More money – none of which is given without a formal application – is expected before April 2014 but the running total for these three tranches stands at £2.2 million.
A BBC spokesman says the money was used for ‘technology-based projects based on existing BBC R&D priorities and business needs’ but would elaborate no further.
The BBC’s response then reveals that it has also received EU grants for programme-making from the European Regional Development Fund.
Although it claims such funding is commonplace among Europe’s public service broadcasters, it has declined to provide a breakdown of the grants beyond insisting that none of the money was spent on news programmes. A helpful BBC insider has worked out that the total amount of EU money spent on programmes over the last three years is likely to have been £1 million.
However, with a straight face, the BBC does explain in its response that Channel 4 has in the past received funding from the same source, and that it used its EU prize money to make the 2008 film Slumdog Millionaire.
When the BBC is prepared to use an FoI response to state how a rival organisation spent its EU booty, but refuses to explain how it spent its own, its standards of transparency are surely broken.
Eurosceptic Labour MP Kate Hoey, now part of an unofficial coalition of politicians overseeing the privately-funded organisation Newswatch, which monitors the BBC for EU bias at a cost of £60,000 per year, says the FoI disclosure is ‘shocking’. She says:
‘I have grave concerns about the bias of the BBC when it comes to EU matters. I find the whole thing shocking. The lack of transparency is unjustified. Why does it seem so worried about people knowing where it gets its money? What has the BBC got to hide other than knowing that many of us don’t trust them on EU matters and the need for a referendum on Britain’s EU membership?’
Ms Hoey adds that she has concerns that the BBC ‘very rarely’ reports Labour MPs’ views on Europe. She says:
‘Even Today in Parliament [on Radio 4] always tries to convey Tory splits on Europe, and this doesn’t help the perception of an EU bias. There are Labour MPs with strong views on Europe as well. It doesn’t help that the BBC very rarely reports these views.’
The evidence contained in this FoI response is the latest in a series of examples shining some light on the BBC’s relationship with the EU.
Last autumn we learned that its charity arm, BBC Media Action, part of its Global News division, was given almost £4 million of EU money in 2012 for a project to train hundreds of journalists from countries which share volatile borders with EU member states, an initiative known as the European Neighbourhood Policy. This acceptance of EU money, not volunteered by the BBC, was condemned in some quarters as proof that it was effectively being paid to help encourage the enlargement of the European project, promoting the EU’s political agenda.
Viewers also had to watch as BBC news bulletins last October lapped up in the most excruciating fashion a European Commission-funded report denying the existence of ‘benefits tourism’, a phenomenon in which non-contributory benefits are available for the unemployed, thereby allowing those who have not paid into our system to make welfare claims in Britain even though unemployed Britons living in, for example, France or Spain, which are not party to this skewed arrangement, cannot make similar claims.
It was depressing to watch the BBC’s unquestioning, lazy reporting, which failed to make the point that Britain is one of only five European countries (along with Ireland, Germany, Finland and Estonia) stupid enough to have allowed itself to be in this situation.
But when the BBC is the recipient of secret EU funds, and is not compelled by any law to disclose its sources of income, what else should licence payers expect? Commenting on the FoI response, a BBC spokesman said:
‘BBC News does not receive any grant funding from the EU. Impartiality and balanced reporting is and always will be of paramount importance for the BBC. Each year in our Annual Report we disclose the total income received from a variety of grants, of which and grants from the EU make up a relatively small proportion of the total figure. The vast majority of EU grants are used for research and development projects. The notion that millions of pounds of EU money goes into our programming is untrue.’