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: 
 

Will EFSA become more transparent, and to lobbyists or scientists? After its public consultation on its draft transparency policy, the Authority must now choose.
This must-watch film is now online. The film shows how corporations and actors within the Commission are teaming up to demolish a major piece of public health legislation.
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.
A crusade for big business-friendly deregulation, waged during José Manuel Barroso's Presidency of the European Commission, shows no signs of stopping. This neoliberal push to weaken or block new legislation appears likely to expand with Jean-Claude Juncker's new Commission team.
Our correspondence with Pr. Anne Glover, the current Chief Scientific Adviser to the President of the European Commission (CSA), on her role in the European Commission's review of endocrine disrupting chemicals shows how the very existence of her position was used by business-friendly interests to convey key messages to the top of the European Commission's hierarchy, playing a determining role in the massive delay now inflicted to the European Commission's handling of this important public health regulation. We ask that the CSA position is not renewed in the new Juncker Commission.
Will EFSA become more transparent, and to lobbyists or scientists? After its public consultation on its draft transparency policy, the Authority must now choose.
Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) today criticised the plenary vote of MEPs to approve the Jean-Claude Juncker Commission.

Corporate Europe Forum