Alliance for Lobbying Transparency

1
Alliance for Lobbying Transparency Ethics
Regulation
Seminar What Ever Happened to Democracy?
Corporate Influence on EU PoliciesBrussels,
European ParliamentApril 15 2008
2
Who is ALTER EU

• July 2005 ALTER EU established as a coalition of
  more than 140 civil society groups
• Members include trade unions (EFJ, Federation of
  Public Service Unions), NGOs (Attac, FoEE, Action
  Aid, GP), academics and consultancies
• Managed by a Steering Committee with reps of
  Greenpeace, EFJ, CEO, Strathclyde University,
  LobbyControl and FoEE

3
Problems with Lobbying in Brussels

• 1. Business interests are much better
  represented 70 business / 10 CSOs / 20
  governments
• 2. Lobbying is not transparent it is impossible
  to find out who is lobbying on behalf of whom
  and how much money is involved
• 3. Certain groups and lobbyists have preferential
  treatment examples Expert Groups and HLG
• 4. Revolving doors cases decision makers taking
  high level positions as lobbyists in the private
  sector

4
ALTER Demands

• 1. EU Lobbying disclosure legislation
• Long term Mandatory system of registration for
  all lobbyists
• Short term Improve the existing rules of
  procedure for the EP
• Ask lobbyists to supply info on who they work
  for, on what topics and how much money is
  involved
• Monitor implementation
• Apply effective sanctions in case of violations
  black list, expulsion
• Financial transparency reporting ranges of
  10.000 Euro
• Names of individual lobbyists mentioned in the
  register

5
ALTER Demands

• 2. Improved Code of Conduct for EU officials
• Cooling off period against revolving doors
• Strengthen rules for conflict of interest
  example Nike case
• 3. Stop privileged access and undue influence of
  corporate lobbyists
• Balanced representation in advisory and expert
  bodies

6
Undermining tactics of PA firms

• Demand a mandatory registration system
• First campaign against a mandatory system and now
  argue that a voluntary system is not fair because
  not everyone signs up
• Take the decision over the life time of Kallas
  and get rid of it
• Insist on one joint register for
  Commission/EP/Council
• This would take at least another 3-5 years
• Pretend that PA firms can manage themselves
  EPACA introduced a fake complaint mechanisms
• Complaint board is not independent at all
• First complaint excluded the complaint board

7
Expert Groups a case of Corporate Dominance

• Expert Groups have important role in preparing EU
  policies
• Justification from the Commission The
  preparation and implementation of EU policies by
  the Commission rely increasingly on expert
  advice As the knowledge required becomes
  increasingly technical and highly specialised,
  the Commission must call upon external
  specialists in their respective fields to feed
  their advice.
• They play a role in early stages of policy
  development
• Big Question Who is involved in these Expert
  Groups and thus obtains a huge influence over EU
  policies

8

• Number of Expert Groups in Commissions register
  1214
• Number with only government representatives 562
  (46.3)
• Number with non-government representatives 652
  (53.7)
• Number with industry representatives 394 (32)
• Since 2000 number of Expert Groups has increased
  with 40
• Commissions register does not tell who is
  sitting on which Expert Group
• Only broad categories are listed such as
  business/NGOs/scientists

9

• ALTER EU did research on Composition and
  Transparency of Expert Groups
• Using Access to Documents Directive
• Survey among 44 Expert Groups
• Only Expert Groups with non-government
  participation
• Expert Groups were in the following areas
  environment, energy, agriculture, consumers,
  health, water and biotechnology
• Research took about 8 months

10
Transparency

• Results on Transparency and the Effectiveness of
  Access to Documents Directive
• In 34 of all cases, the Commission failed to
  provide any information about the Expert Groups
• In a further 34 of all cases the Commission only
  provided partial information
• The Commission only provided a complete and
  satisfactory response in 32 of the cases
• In only 36 of the cases the European Commission
  provided information within the prescribed 15
  working days
• In only 43 of the cases the European Commission
  provided names of organisations and individuals
  represented in Expert Groups.

11
Composition

• Results related to the Composition of Expert
  Groups
• Over 25 of Expert Groups appear to be controlled
  by corporate interests more than half of all
  their members (including governments) are
  industry representatives
• In 64 of the Expert Groups, business appears to
  be over-represented industry representatives
  make up more than 50 of the non-Commission and
  non-government members
• Only 32 of the Expert Groups sampled appear to
  have a more balanced allocation of stakeholders
• One Expert Group (4) was unbalanced in favour of
  NGOs

12

• Seven Expert Groups were controlled by business
• Competitiveness in Biotechnology Advisory Group
  with Industry and Academia (CBAG)
• High Level Group on Textiles and Clothing
• Supervisory Group of the voluntary commitments of
  car manufacturers to reduce CO2 emissions
• Informing Consumer Behaviour Working Group
• Coal Combustion Clean Coal and efficient coal
  technologies, CO2 capture
• Alternative fuels
• Changement Climatique et Industrie

13
Conclusions

• Industry lobbyists are dominating the EU law
  making process (if these figures are relevant for
  all Expert Groups)
• Business groups have a strong influence over
  policy areas where they have a strong commercial
  interest
• The Commission is not transparent about the
  membership of Expert Groups
• Positive Commission announced that they will
  release by the Summer the full membership of all
  Expert Groups
• Commission states that NGOs have almost equal
  number of participants on Expert Groups. This
  seems very unlikely and can not be taken for
  granted without clear evidence

14
ALTER EU Recommendations

• Disclose on internet membership and key documents
  of all Expert Groups
• Ensure full transparency around the creation of
  new Groups
• Ensure an open and fair process for selecting the
  Expert Groups membership
• Devise strong safeguard mechanisms against
  privileged access and unbalanced composition of
  Expert Groups
• Dissolve all Expert Groups that are controlled by
  industry or by any other special interests
• Conduct a broad review on the composition of all
  Groups