DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES
POLICY DEPARTMENT D: BUDGETARY AFFAIRS
Deterrence of fraud with EU funds through investigative journalism in EU-27
STUDY
Abstract:
The study depicts the state of investigative journalism in the 27 EU member states, with a focus on Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Romania, Spain, UK and a special focus on the interaction between European institutions and investigative journalists. It illustrates conditions promoting or impeding good investigative journalism in general, and in particular for reporting on fraud with EU funds and revenues.
It recommends: a swift implementation of workable freedom of information laws across the EU, comprehensiveness of data provided by EU bodies and member states on their spending, targeted training for journalists, promotion of investigative centres and more cooperation between journalists and officials at EU and national levels, this in view of advanced transparency and helping citizens to understand the added value of EU spending.
17/10/2012
- PE 490.663
- EN
This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control. It designated Bart STAES, MEP, to follow the study.
AUTHORS
Principal author for Fonds Pascal Decroos: Margo Smit, director Vereniging van Onderzoeksjournalisten
co-authors: Brigitte Alfter, Mar Cabra, Annamarie Cumiskey, Ides Debruyne, Marcos García Rey, Rafael Njotea, Albrecht Ude
Rozenweg 4-B B-1731 Zellik Belgium
RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR
Helmut Werner Policy Department D: Budgetary Affairs European Parliament B-1047 Brussels
E-mail: [email protected]
LINGUISTIC VERSIONS
Original: EN Translation executive summaries: DE, FR
ABOUT THE EDITOR
To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to its newsletter please write to:
Manuscript completed in August 2012. Brussels, © European Union, 2012.
This document is available on the Internet at:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies
DISCLAIMER
The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament.
Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorized, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy.
Deterrence of fraud with EU funds through investigative journalism in EU-27
__________________________________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .....................................................................................................................................7 List of abbreviations ........................................................................................................................9 Executive summary....................................................................................................................... 11 Zusammenfassung........................................................................................................................ 16 Synthèse ........................................................................................................................................ 21 1. Investigating Europe, mapping the great unknown .......................................................... 26
Funds Investigative journalism Europe
1.2. Investigative journalism in Europe, an emerging ecosystem
34 34
Mapping investigative output on fraud with EU funds (Annex 2 and 11) Contributors to the mapping exercise (Annex 13)
2. The state of investigative journalism in Europe, analysing the playing field................... 35
2.2. Organising investigative reporting in the newsroom (annex 3) 2.3. Investigative journalism as a skill (annex 4)
38 41
2.4.1. 2.4.2.
Work pressure and the crisis of the freelancer Threats and intimidation (annex 5)
43 44
The case of public broadcasting A role for (non-profit) investigative centres
2.6. FOI, whistle-blowers and protection of sources
57 59 60
2.6.1.1 2.6.1.2 2.6.1.3
Access to document and transparency rules in the EU bodies Freedom of information laws in the member states Interaction between the various levels
3
Policy Department D: Budgetary Affairs
__________________________________________________________________________________________
2.6.1.4 2.6.2. 2.6.3.
Active transparency and access to data Whistle-blowing rules (annex 7) Protection of sources (annex 8)
60 61 63
2.8. Press Freedom (annex 9) 2.9. Conclusion
69 70
3. The state of investigative journalism on fraud with EU funds, analysing output ............ 71
Origin Role of the Brussels press corps
3.2. Topic trends in investigative output on the EU
4. Zooming in ............................................................................................................................. 90
4.1.1. 4.1.2. 4.1.3.
Focus - Transparenta Fondurilor Europene Recommendations
91 92 94
4.3.1. 4.3.2. 4.3.3.
Focus – the media law of January 2011 Recommendations
100 103 104
4.4. United Kingdom (annex 11, 12)
4
Deterrence of fraud with EU funds through investigative journalism in EU-27
__________________________________________________________________________________________
4.5.1. 4.5.2.
Focus – Editorial priorities Recommendations Conclusions
110 113 114
4.6.1. 4.6.2. 4.6.3.
Focus – a renaissance, ‘sort of’ Recommendations Conclusion
115 119 121
125 126
Recommendations Conclusion
5. Incentives and impediments to investigative Journalism on EU funds .......................... 127
5.2. Europe is not on our radar. Whose radar would that be? 5.3. Lack of journalism skills
128 129 130 131 132 133 134
5.4. Access to data and documents, towards workable FOI acts Europe-wide 5.5. Protect the source to counter a culture of silence 5.6. Press freedom: easy to endorse, hard to enforce 5.7. Business model diversity as strength 5.8. The urge for co-operation
6. Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 135 Bibliography................................................................................................................................ 137
5
Policy Department D: Budgetary Affairs
__________________________________________________________________________________________
List of Annexes
ANNEX 1 - The investigative journalism landscape in EU-27 and the brussels EU media ......143 ANNEX 2 - Investigative reporting on the European Union focusing on addressing cases of fraud with EU funds within the Member States, EU institutions, organisations or NGOS.........................................................................................................................191
ANNEX 3 - Statistics on grants from Scoop, European Journalismfund and Fonds Pascal
Decroos.....................................................................................................................223
ANNEX 4 - Farmsubsidy.org and Fishsubsidy.org.....................................................................225 ANNEX 5 - ‘Tillack’ case and protection of sources ...................................................................231 ANNEX 6 - Freedom of Information Legislation ........................................................................235
oo
within the EU member states ..................................................................................235 within the EU institutions........................................................................................235
ANNEX 7 - State of Legislature on Whistle-Blowing in EU member states in 2009.................239 ANNEX 8 - Constitutional or legal Protection of Sources in the EU-27 ....................................241 ANNEX 9 - RSF Press freedom Index 2011 / 2012 ......................................................................245 ANNEX 10 - Spain, the role of investigative journalism in relation to fraud and misuse of
European union funds (2006-2012)........................................................................247
ANNEX 11 - UK Cuttings ..............................................................................................................259 ANNEX 12 - Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Coverage of EU Fraud, Waste and
Mismanagement in the UK Media from 2006-2011...............................................283
ANNEX 13 - Sources .....................................................................................................................285 ANNEX 14 - Project team.............................................................................................................289
6
Deterrence of fraud with EU funds through investigative journalism in EU-27
__________________________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
In the fall of 2011, the European Parliament Committee on Budgetary Control called for a study on deterrence of fraud with EU funds through investigative journalism in the European Union member states. Could investigative journalism be instrumental in the detection of and fight against corruption and fraud with EU funds, and if so, how? Analysing best practices of and impediments to investigative reporting into EU funds should lead to recommendations to the EU institutions. This report, though recognising the sensitivity of journalists towards ‘outsiders’ advising them on how to do their job, also aims at providing recommendations to the professionals in journalism themselves.
In Chapter 1, a theoretical background is presented, on which mapping exercises are based (results in Annex 1, Annex 2 and Annex 11). These annexes show that investigative reporting on fraud, waste and (mis)appropriation of EU money does not hold high priority on the agenda of journalists within (most of) the member states. As the analysis of investigative journalism in and on the EU will show (Chapter 2 and Chapter 3), this has a multi-layered explanation not easily condensed into one sweeping conclusion. Some arguments are pertaining to (investigative) journalism in general; others take on the topic of Europe and its intricate workings; still others focus on specific circumstances within member states.
In Chapter 4, analysis of six ‘focus’ countries and the EU institutions will zoom in on specific circumstances influencing practice, output and content of stories, thus showing the manifold face of investigative journalism within EU Member States on EU funds. Chapter 5 will list and dissect arguments raised for the lack of journalistic research into the topic of this report, highlight conditions promoting good investigative journalism, and give practical recommendations applicable to improving the role of investigative journalism in deterrence of fraud with EU funds within the EU-27. Chapter 6 will draw conclusions.
At the core of the explanation why in some countries one can find scores of stories on how EU funds are spent and received and in others there are virtually none, and how the role of investigative journalism in doing these stories can be enlarged, the overriding terms are prioritisation, determination and co-operation. First, with Europe and its spending being perceived as remote and abstract to readers and viewers, and misappropriation and fraud as victimless crimes, it is easy to dismiss fraud as incidents within a group of greedy politicians or sloppy Brussels’ bureaucrats not warranting systematic scrutiny by the media. But as the World Bank Institute in 2000 stated,
‘civil society and the media are crucial to creating and maintaining an atmosphere in public life that discourages fraud and corruption. Indeed, they are arguably the two most important factors in eliminating systemic corruption in public institutions.’1
In the midst of a European financial crisis, it should be less and less hard to convince newsmakers of the importance of the topic. These are stories going to the heart of ‘project Europe’ and to the core business of journalists in providing context and understanding, and should get a much higher
