Commission entrusts EU lobbyists to
self-regulate
Euractiv.com, Published: Thursday 4
May 2006 | Updated: 08:14
http://www.euractiv.com/en/pa/commission-entrusts-eu-lobbyists-self-regulate/article-154962
In Short:
The European transparency initiative is welcomed across the board by EU
public affairs professionals. But the positive statements cover up deep
uneasiness over how far regulation should go and who should be included.
Background:
In a Communication issued in November 2005, Anti-Fraud and
Administrative Affairs Commissioner Siim Kallas proposed to launch a
European Transparency Initiative focusing on four fields (EurActiv, 14
Nov. 2005):
* improving information on beneficiaries of EU funds
* fighting fraud
* improving lobbying transparency
* stepping up ethical standards and accountability
of EU lawmakers
Issues:
Launching his Green Paper on a European Transparency Initiative on 3
May, Commission Vice-President Siim Kallas admitted that no hard
regulatory measures were likely to come out on lobbying transparency
under his term in office.
"We will start with voluntary measures," Kallas said, adding that
compulsory measures would follow "only if it fails" and probably "not
until the end period of this Commission" due to the length of the
legislative procedure.
In the Green paper, the Commission rules out mandatory registration of
lobbyists, saying "a tighter system of self-regulation would appear
more appropriate". Charting the "way forward", the paper proposes:
* a voluntary registration system, "run by the
Commission, with clear incentives for lobbyists to register". Such
incentives would include "automatic alerts of consultations on issues
of known interest to the lobbyists"
* a common code of conduct for all lobbyists […]
"developed by the lobbying profession itself, possibly consolidating
and improving the existing codes"
* a system of monitoring and sanctions "in case of
incorrect registration and/or breach of the code of conduct".
Since it was announced in March 2005, the transparency initiative has
stumbled over a series of practical obstacles about how to regulate
lobbying. Key issues include:
* Defining what is lobbying: the Green paper defines
it as "all activities carried out with the objective of influencing the
policy formulation and decision-making process of the European
institutions".
* Defining who should be considered as a lobbyist:
the Green paper defines lobbyists as "persons carrying out such
activities, working in a variety of organisations such as public
affairs consultancies, law firms, NGOs, think-tanks, corporate lobby
units ("in-house representatives") or trade associations.
However, these definitions do not make things much easier as they
embrace a very wide variety of activities, persons and professions.
Widely thought to be the toughest nut to crack in any form of lobbying
(self-)regulation are law firms, which are bound by confidentiality
rules forbidding them from disclosing the name of their clients.
By contrast, some public affairs firms such as Hill & Knowlton have
already taken steps and publish a list of clients on their website. Not
all in Brussels do the same at present.
Another key issue in the debate about lobbying transparency is money.
The Green Paper says lobby groups which seek to influence EU policies
"must be clear who they represent, what their mission is and how they
are financed".
But suggestions by NGOs that all of the above groups and professions
should disclose full details about funding will certainly prove hard to
implement. In fact, the Green Paper does not make it one of its
recommendations.
Positions:
Public affairs consultants in Brussels insist that high ethical
standards on lobbying can only be met provided that "all lobbyists",
including "lawyers, accountants, management consultants, NGOs, trade
unions, corporate lobbyists, trade associations, think tanks, and
professional consultancies" abide by the same transparency rules.
The European Public Affairs Consultancies' Association (EPACA) is
stepping up its efforts and it currently setting up an independent
supervisory body (Professional Practices Panel) that will be in charge
of enforcing disciplinary measures upon members caught transgressing
its self-imposed code of conduct. EPACA currently claims to represent
34 member companies, employing over 700 staff and representing "some
70% of the European public affairs consulting market" in Brussels.
These efforts are welcome by the Commission but clearly fall short of
what it hopes to achieve. It estimates that around 15,000 lobbyists
currently operate in Brussels.
Jeremy Galbraith, from Burson-Marsteller in Brussels, a member of
EPACA, says the definition of what actually constitutes lobbying should
be refined. Galbraith points out that, contrary to Washington, lobbying
in Brussels encompasses a much wider variety of activities: media
relations, organising events or workshops and other interactions with
politicians. The problem, he says, is where to draw the line between
these activities.
Asked whether public affairs firms could envisage disclosing their
fees, Galbraith says it would be ok "if there can be a definition and a
level-playing field," a suggestion that law firms and others would need
to do it as well. However, Galbraith says fee disclosure is "not what
the Commission is asking for at this stage". On this issue, he
recommends adopting a step-by-step approach: "first a common register,
then maybe we can start talking about disclosing fees".
The voluntary approach to lobbying regulation is criticised by
ALTER-EU, a transparency campaign group, as "a second best option".
"Vested interest lobbyists are likely to continue to operate without
having to provide information on the financing of their activities," it
said.
Erik Wesselius of the Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO), a leading
member of ALTER-EU, said: "An e-mail list announcing upcoming
Commission consultations is no credible incentive to ensure
comprehensive registration and reporting by EU lobbyists. Those
lobbyists who want to stay in the shadow and not reveal their lobbying
to the general public will continue to do so under this proposal."
Galbraith seemed to agree. E-mail alerts, he says, are "not a big deal"
since most EU institution newsletters and online alerts are already
available by simple registration.