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. 13/09/2012 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: [email protected] 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 1.1. Investigative journalism, fraud, funds and Europe: definitions 26 1.1.1. Fraud 26 1.1.2. Funds 27 1.1.3. Investigative journalism 28 1.1.4. Europe 30 1.2. Investigative journalism in Europe, an emerging ecosystem 30 1.3. Investigative journalism in and on Europe, a mapping exercise 33 1.3.1. Mapping the investigative ecosystem (Annex 1) 33 1.3.2. Mapping investigative output on fraud with EU funds (Annex 2 and 11) 34 1.3.3. Contributors to the mapping exercise (Annex 13) 34 2. The state of investigative journalism in Europe, analysing the playing field................... 35 2.1. (Investigative) Journalism in financial crisis 35 2.2. Organising investigative reporting in the newsroom (annex 3) 38 2.3. Investigative journalism as a skill (annex 4) 41 2.4. The investigative journalist, an endangered species? 43 2.4.1. Work pressure and the crisis of the freelancer 43 2.4.2. Threats and intimidation (annex 5) 44 2.5. Media ownership and pluralism 48 2.5.1. A role for Europe? 49 2.5.2. The case of public broadcasting 53 2.5.3. A role for (non-profit) investigative centres 54 2.6. FOI, whistle-blowers and protection of sources 56 2.6.1. Freedom of information (annex 6) 56 2.6.1.1 Access to document and transparency rules in the EU bodies 57 2.6.1.2 Freedom of information laws in the member states 59 2.6.1.3 Interaction between the various levels 60 3 Policy Department D: Budgetary Affairs __________________________________________________________________________________________ 2.6.1.4 Active transparency and access to data 60 2.6.2. Whistle-blowing rules (annex 7) 61 2.6.3. Protection of sources (annex 8) 63 2.7. Media accountability, watching the watchdog 67 2.8. Press Freedom (annex 9) 69 2.9. Conclusion 70 3. The state of investigative journalism on fraud with EU funds, analysing output ............ 71 3.1. Amount and origin 71 3.1.1. Amount 71 3.1.2. Origin 73 3.1.3. Role of the Brussels press corps 75 3.2. Topic trends in investigative output on the EU 77 3.3. Sources for investigative reporting on EU funds 81 3.3.1. Data 81 3.3.2. Documents 83 3.3.3. Oral sources 85 3.3.4. The benefit of sharing sources 86 3.4. Impact 87 3.5. Conclusions 88 4. Zooming in ............................................................................................................................. 90 4.1. Romania 90 4.1.1. Focus - Transparenta Fondurilor Europene 91 4.1.2. Recommendations 92 4.1.3. Conclusion 94 4.2. Spain (annex 10) 95 4.2.1. Focus – when cross-border co-operation is needed 95 4.2.2. Recommendations 98 4.2.3. Conclusion 98 4.3. Hungary 99 4.3.1. Focus – the media law of January 2011 100 4.3.2. Recommendations 103 4.3.3. Conclusion 104 4.4. United Kingdom (annex 11, 12) 105 4.4.1. Focus – large quantity data journalism 106 4.4.2. Recommendations 108 4.4.3. Conclusion 109 4.5. Denmark 109 4 Deterrence of fraud with EU funds through investigative journalism in EU-27 __________________________________________________________________________________________ 4.5.1. Focus – Editorial priorities 110 4.5.2. Recommendations 113 4.5.3. Conclusions 114 4.6. Italy 115 4.6.1. Focus – a renaissance, ‘sort of’ 115 4.6.2. Recommendations 119 4.6.3. Conclusion 121 4.7. EU institutions 122 4.7.1. Focus – in search of co-operation 122 4.7.2. Recommendations 125 4.7.3. Conclusion 126 5. Incentives and impediments to investigative Journalism on EU funds .......................... 127 5.1. No money, no time? No argument! 127 5.2. Europe is not on our radar. Whose radar would that be? 128 5.3. Lack of journalism skills 129 5.4. Access to data and documents, towards workable FOI acts Europe-wide 130 5.5. Protect the source to counter a culture of silence 131 5.6. Press freedom: easy to endorse, hard to enforce 132 5.7. Business model diversity as strength 133 5.8. The urge for co-operation 134 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 o within the EU member states ..................................................................................235 o 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