|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
You are here: FoEE / Economic Justice
European Commissioner Kallas (Administrative Affairs, Audit and Anti-Fraud) first announced the need for a European Transparency Initiative in a speech in March 2005, stating that lobbyists' "[...] transparency is too deficient in comparison to the impact of their activities." A communication followed in November 2005, announcing stricter regulation of lobbying activities and the launch of a debate on rules and standards on professional ethics of public office holders in the European Institutions.
On May 3rd 2006, the European Comission published the long-awaited Green Paper on a European Transparency Initiative, confirming that "when lobby groups seek to contribute to EU policy development, it must be clear to the general public which input they provide to the European institutions. It must also be clear who they represent, what their mission is and how they are funded." However, the paper fails to deliver transparency around the role of lobbying by proposing only a voluntary registration system for lobbyists.
The launch of the Green Paper was followed by a four-month online consultation on the ETI, inviting the public to submit comments on the three chapters of the Green Paper.
In October 2006, ALTER-EU published a media briefing to summarise the key lessons from the consultation on the ETI Green Paper.
By contrast, it took the Commission several more months to evaluate the consultation and announce the next steps. Waiting for the comunication from the Commission, ALTER-EU sent comments to Commissioner Kallas and several other Commissioners.
One day before the publication of the Commission's follow-up comunication, ALTER-EU issued a media briefing outlining the key questions which should be answered in the communciation in order to deliver meaningful transparency.
On March 21st 2007, the Commission finally published its follow-up communication to the ETI, taking first steps towards financial transparency but announcing only a weak voluntary register for lobbyists. The results of the consultation were published in a separate document. Additionally, Frequently Asked Questions were answered in a Memo.
Over the spring and summer, the Commission organised several 'stakeholder dialogues' to discuss a code of conduct for interest representatives. the discussion was aimed to find 'common denominators' rather than a detailed, strong code. In December 2007, the Commission published a draft code of conduct for interest representatives proposing only very basic and weak rules. A 2-month public consultation followed.
The European Parliament prepared an own-initiative report on a framework for the activities of lobbyists in the European institutions. The lead committee was AFCO (Constitutional affairs) under rapporteur Alexander Stubb. Previously, five other committees adopted opinions on the dossier: > Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (29 Nov 2007) Taking into account these opinions as well as a Legal Opinion (Legal basis for a mandatory registration of lobbyists and possible sanctions foreseen by such a system) by the parliamentary legal service, the rapporteur drafted a final report. The report stresses that lobbying must be transparent and takes a positive standpoint towards a common lobbyists' register of all the European institutions. It was adopted on 1st of April 2008 by 18 positive votes, 1 vote against and 3 abstentions. After some weakening by Christian Democrats and Liberals, the full plenary adopted the report on 8 May 2008.
The Commission took its time to set up the new register. To support the implementation of a meaningful EU lobbying transparency register, ALTER-EU issued recommendations and benchmarks on the design of the register
In meetings between ALTER-EU and Commission representatives, it became clear that the Commission backtracked on transparency: in the drafts for the register, two crucial pieces of information were missing: Alarmed, ALTER-EU wrote to Commission President Barroso and issued a press release.
Finally, on 23 June 2008, the Commission launches the long-awaited register for lobbyists. But it is weak and unbalanced. Some of the major flaws are: > The Commission lobby register is voluntary
A working group between the European Parliament and Commission was established to discuss the terms for a common approach for lobbyist registration. On April 23rd 2009, the group published an agreement to establish a joint voluntary register for the two institutions. But the proposal will fail to shed more light on lobbying in Brussels, as it is nothing more but a half-hearted attempt to bolt together two weak and very contrasting existing registers. It makes no attempt to address the fact that the current voluntary register of the European Commission has been shunned by a high proportion of lobby organisations and firms, nor the loopholes of the Parliament scheme which allows thousands of lobbyists to enter on day passes without registering. The agreement is out of line with a resolution on lobby transparency adopted by the Parliament in May 2008.
The working group is supposed to further develop the proposals after the Commission has finalised its review of the register. With the newly elected Parliament, this also means a change in the composition in the group.
As the European Commission prepares to review its voluntary lobby register one year after its official launch in 2008, ALTER-EU has published a detailed report highlighting the failures of the register and putting forward concrete proposals for improvement. Only 593 out of the estimated 2600 Brussels-based lobby organisations have registered (22,8%).
On 28th of October 2009, the Commission finally published a review of the register and announced some clarifications and elimination of loopholes. ALTER-EU welcomes that the Commission wants to fix some of the weaknesses in the initial design of the register, but fundamental flaws remain. The Commission fails to address several serious shortcomings in the register, and some new loopholes were created. Overall, the result of the review could even be less rather than more transparency.
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
