Corporate Europe Observatory

Exposing the power of corporate lobbying in the EU

Companies Reap EU Research Rewards

  • Dansk
  • Nederlands
  • English
  • Suomi
  • Français
  • Deutsch
  • Ελληνικά
  • Italiano
  • Bokmål
  • Polski
  • Portuguese
  • Română
  • Slovenščina
  • Español
  • Svenska
Millions of euros of EU research money is being directed towards controversial projects which do not benefit the public interest, according to new research from Corporate Europe Observatory published today [1].

The report, which is launched as the European Commission hosts a conference on research in Brussels [2], says that the approval of so-many controversial projects is not surprising, given that many of the companies were also involved in writing the EU’s Strategic Research Agenda, which sets the priorities for new research.

Projects receiving funding under the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) include research into genetically modified trees and crops, research in coordination with Brazil to foster agrofuel imports from Latin America, and research into the use of agrofuels for aviation.

Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) has criticised the funding priorities which it says fail to assess the public benefits of the schemes.

Report author Amaranta Herrero from CEO said:

“These projects are being given public money but they will not benefit EU taxpayers, or the public in general. Instead the European Commission gives private companies priviliged access in deciding how public funds are spent. The companies involved must be laughing all the way to the bank.”

Companies including Shell, Syngenta, Novozymes, Bayer, SEKAB, Abengoa, Repsol and SweTree Technologies were involved in writing the EU’s Strategic Research Agenda after they were invited to join the Commission’s European Biofuels Technology Platform (EBFTP) [3]. All have so far received funding under FP7.

The research highlights the threats posed by some of the projects being funded, in particular the risk posed by GE trees. SweTree Technologies wants to modify trees to reduce the lignin content, which gives trees their rigidity. But the report authors say this will make the trees vulnerable and put natural forests at risk if they are exposed to this genetic trait.

Nina Holland, co-author of the report, added:
“Projects to genetically engineer trees for biomass pose a major threat to the survival of our forests, while increased agrofuel production will result in further monoculture expansion in Latin America and elsewhere. These energy projects to develop alternative fuels are as damaging as the fossil fuels they seek to replace.”

Contact:

Amaranta Herrero: + 34 935812503
Nina Holland: + 32 497 389 632 (Thursday: + 31 6 30285042)

Notes:
[1] Agrofuels and the EU research budget: public funding for private interests, Corporate Europe Observatory, 27 May 2009,
http://www.corporateeurope.org/agrofuels/content/2009/05/agrofuels-and-eu-research-budget
[2] 'Sustainable Development; a Challenge for European Research', Brussels, 26-28 May
[3] http://www.corporateeurope.org/agrofuels/content/2009/04/industry-pushes-25-agrofuel-target
Related issues: 
 
Campaign groups today called on members of the European Parliament to back citizens' demands for improved rules to prohibit the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops. A letter signed by five environment, consumers and farmers groups was sent to all members of the parliament's environment committee, which will debate this controversial issue later in the week.
A few observations on the debate sparked by our open letter on the position of Chief Scientific Advisor to the President of the European Commission, and on the need for proper scientific advice to EU legislators.
No sector has lobbied the European Commission more when it was preparing negotiations on the proposed EU-US trade deal (TTIP) than the agribusiness sector, according to data published today by CEO in a series of research-based infographics.
Food is on the table at the negotiations for the EU-US trade deal the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). From a look at their lobbying demands, the agribusiness industry seems to regard the treaty as a perfect weapon to counter existing and future food regulations.
Campaign groups today called on members of the European Parliament to back citizens' demands for improved rules to prohibit the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops. A letter signed by five environment, consumers and farmers groups was sent to all members of the parliament's environment committee, which will debate this controversial issue later in the week.
The new European Parliament is only weeks old and already three ex-MEPs from perhaps its most important committee have taken a spin in the revolving door to join the private sector. It's clear that the code of conduct for MEPs needs urgent reform.
CEO submission to the European Ombudsman Consultation on the composition of Commission expert groups
Scientific advice should be transparent, objective and independent, and there should be more science and more diverse expertise available to the European Commission’s President, a coalition of 28 international and national NGOs wrote in a letter addressed to President-elect Jean-Claude Juncker today (1).

Corporate Europe Forum