Sergio Berlato, an Italian Member of the European Parliament from the Fratelli d’Italia party, is a vocal pro-hunting lobbyist. Despite his clear ties to hunting associations in Veneto, he was appointed as a co-rapporteur for the EU regulation on the import, export, and transit of firearms without any issues. This legislation is of particular interest to the hunting community as it aims to streamline the movement of weapons used for hunting. Berlato was also chosen by his parliamentary group to oversee negotiations on the EU’s biodiversity strategy, allowing him to propose amendments that highlight the role of hunters in nature conservation. When questioned about his positions, Berlato did not respond.
Berlato is not the only MEP engaging in additional activities while holding public office. According to a survey conducted by Le Monde in collaboration with five European media outlets and the NGO Aria, out of the 452 outgoing European Parliament members, 452 declared engaging in activities, paid or unpaid, in addition to their elected mandate, or holding financial interests in a company. While some activities, such as holding other political positions or writing books, are considered standard for elected officials, the majority of cases involve ties to private entities that could potentially compromise their independence. Transparency International’s Raphaël Kergueno highlighted concerns about MEPs undertaking missions for companies registered in Brussels’s lobbying transparency registry.
One notable example is Guy Verhofstadt, an MEP from Renew Europe, who receives a monthly income of 5,000 euros for serving on the advisory board of the green investment fund Planet First Partners. Verhofstadt’s earnings could be influenced by European regulations on green finance. Despite this potential conflict of interest, one of his spokespeople stated that his involvement in the fund does not contradict his environmental and sustainability stances. These instances of MEPs holding secondary positions or financial interests are present across all European countries represented in the Parliament.
The issue of MEPs’ secondary incomes has resurfaced during the campaign for the European elections. While some activities are considered innocuous, such as holding positions in political parties or writing, many raise concerns about conflicts of interest. Transparency International’s report on MEPs’ secondary incomes, released in May, highlighted cases where MEPs engaged in activities for companies involved in lobbying activities in Brussels. This intersection between public office and private interests raises questions about the independence and impartiality of elected officials when making decisions that affect EU policies and regulations.
Overall, the prevalence of MEPs engaging in additional activities or being financially tied to private entities underscores the need for stronger regulations and transparency in the European Parliament. While some cases may not violate ethical standards, concerns about conflicts of interest persist. The involvement of MEPs in activities that could potentially influence their decision-making processes calls for greater scrutiny and accountability to ensure that representatives act in the public’s best interest and uphold the principles of democracy and integrity in their roles as elected officials.
