WILLEMSTAD, THE HAGUE – More than 20 of the 27 Curaçao projects seeking Dutch government funding for social initiatives related to the legacy of slavery could potentially never receive a substantive review because of the way applications are processed, according to the Curaçao Baseball Federation (FEBEKO).
FEBEKO, itself one of the 27 applicants, is calling on the Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (BZK) and the Dutch Parliament to reconsider the system before the available funding is fully distributed.
Under the current procedure, when applications exceed the available subsidy budget, a notarial lottery determines the order in which applications are processed. The projects are subsequently assessed on their merits in that order, but only until the available funding has been exhausted.
FEBEKO received lottery number 19.
“The word ‘notarial’ gives the procedure a serious appearance, but it does not change the problem,” Paddy Roomer said on behalf of FEBEKO. “The notary can ensure that the draw is conducted correctly. He cannot determine whether Curaçao consequently gets the best projects. A notarial lottery remains a lottery.”
According to FEBEKO, its objection is not an attempt to secure preferential treatment for its own proposal. Instead, the organization argues that all 27 applications should first be evaluated and compared before funding decisions are made.
“Maybe our plan is fantastic. Maybe other plans are much better. We don't know,” Roomer said. “But that is exactly the point: you can only know which plans are the best after you have read and compared them.”
The financial limits make the issue particularly significant. According to FEBEKO, approximately $1.3 million is available for Curaçao during the current application period under category 4, while individual projects can request up to $500,000.
As a result, only a few successful applications could consume most or all of the available Curaçao budget, potentially leaving projects further down the lottery order without ever being substantively assessed.
FEBEKO argues that projects left unread could include initiatives involving young people and senior citizens, talent development, education, culture and greater knowledge about Curaçao's slavery past. Other proposals could potentially strengthen connections between Curaçao, the Netherlands and the large Curaçaoan diaspora.
“Maybe the strongest ideas are number 3. But maybe they are number 8, 19 or 24,” FEBEKO stated. “If you don't read them, you'll never know.”
The organization also questions why the assessment system for larger projects was changed. According to FEBEKO, the original 2024 arrangement allowed organizations to submit applications during a fixed application period. The larger proposals would then be substantively evaluated, compared and ranked based on criteria including social significance, reach and impact.
That system was changed in 2025. According to FEBEKO, the substantive ranking was eliminated and replaced, in cases where available funding was oversubscribed, by a lottery determining the processing order.
One justification for the change was that processing applications according to when they were received could disadvantage smaller and less experienced organizations. FEBEKO argues, however, that the previous system for larger projects was not based on a first-come, first-served approach in the first place.
“There already was a system in which the speed of submission was not decisive,” the federation said. “Why precisely that system was abolished and replaced by a lottery is something we would like to have explained.”
FEBEKO said its concerns have gained additional weight following contact with Dagmar Oudshoorn, former chair of the Advisory Board Dialogue Group on the History of Slavery, established by BZK. The advisory body issued recommendations in 2021 concerning recognition, apologies and measures addressing the legacy of slavery.
According to FEBEKO, Oudshoorn confirmed that agreements made at the time concerning the follow-up process were fundamentally different from the lottery system now being used.
The federation said this raises questions not only about why the previous substantive assessment system was changed, but also about whether the current procedure is consistent with the principles and agreements underlying the broader Dutch slavery reparative measures.
FEBEKO also said BZK Director-General for Kingdom Relations Barbera Wolfensberger has confirmed in writing that the lottery determines the processing order and that applications are substantively reviewed until the available subsidy budget has been exhausted.
BZK is having the subsidy scheme independently evaluated, with results expected at the end of September. FEBEKO fears that could be too late for applicants in the current round.
“If it turns out in September that the system could have been better, while the money has already been distributed and 20 or more plans were never reviewed, that will be of little benefit to the Curaçao community,” the federation said.
FEBEKO is also criticizing the amount of information available to applicants. It said its application has been in the official subsidy portal for more than two and a half months, with its status still showing only “Submitted.”
According to the federation, applicants cannot see their lottery number, their position in the processing order, how many applications have already been reviewed, how much money remains available or whether the budget could be depleted before their proposal is assessed. FEBEKO said it obtained this information only after making its own inquiries.
FEBEKO is now asking BZK and the Dutch Parliament to clarify why substantive ranking was abolished, who proposed the change, whether Curaçao was explicitly consulted and whether the procedure can still be adjusted before further funding is distributed.
“Not everyone can receive a subsidy. That is not what this discussion is about,” Roomer said.
“But if Curaçao explains 27 times what it wants to do with its history, its community and its future, shouldn't the Netherlands first want to know which ideas can make the greatest difference?”
“Read them. Compare them. Then choose.”