Brussels’s non-governmental order

Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are a major feature of the Brussels networking environment and play an important role in the formation of policy at EU level.

They see their role as furthering the democratic process and making the EU more accountable by allowing issues of concern to citizens to be put forward. Since Dutch and French voters rejected the EU constitutional treaty in referenda in 2005 this process of including civil society in EU decision-making is seen as even more important.

But critics see NGOs as seeking to influence policy at EU level to further their own ideological views.

Two areas where NGOs are both numerous and vociferous are international development and the environment.

In some areas of development policy the European Commission has set up an elaborate process of consultation where NGOs can submit opinions on Commission initiatives, meet officials and commissioners. Since 1998 the Commission’s Directorate-General (DG) for Trade has organised regular meetings with NGOs through the ‘civil society dialogue’ aimed at involving all stakeholders in important trade negotiations and making the process more transparent.

But many NGOs involved in campaigning on talks for a global trade liberalisation deal at the World Trade Organization (WTO) believe that despite such consultation few of their views have been accepted. "There is a public process of consultation but there is little evidence of opinions being taken on board," says Joanna Maycock, ActionAid’s EU representative.

A recent report by three NGOs - ActionAid, Solidar and Friends of the Earth - on the Commission’s civil society dialogue on trade concluded: "DG Trade officials clearly had never intended the CSD [civil society dialogue] to be a process of policy consultation, but set it up in order to make trade policy more transparent, clarify their position and, at times, demystify it, for officials in DG Trade often felt that civil society misunderstood the ins-and-outs of trade policy."

NGOs have smaller resources in terms of time, money and staff to lobby EU institutions than businesses and so a major campaign amounting to little can be a disappointment. Worse, they fear that consultation with NGOs can give a veneer of approval by wider society when in fact most of the discussions and their positions have been ignored. The Commission in particular is heavily influenced by the priorities of member states in international development, as the WTO talks showed. But also different departments within the Commission itself can cause policy to be watered down or abandoned.

"We sometimes do wonder if it is worth engaging with the Commission. Since we have limited time and money it sometimes is better to engage directly with member states," says Maycock.

But Maycock rejects the notion from liberal analysts that NGOs campaigning on behalf of developing countries in the WTO talks have an agenda to stop globalisation and the liberalisation of markets. "It’s not a question of ideology but about the experience we have on the ground. It’s not an anti-globalisation agenda but it’s about the impact on poor countries," she says.

On other issues where NGOs are known to have a particular expertise, their views are welcomed and taken on board. This is mostly seen in the area of humanitarian assistance where the Commission does not deliver assistance itself but funds organisations such as the United Nations, Oxfam and Médecins Sans Frontières to decide what aid should be provided and how.

The European Parliament is also a sympathetic ear for NGOs and regularly launches joint campaigns to fight off unwanted policy moves by the Commission and member states. One example was a campaign by the Parliament’s development committee with NGOs over the Commission’s "development co-operation instrument" which sought to alter the way development money would be spent and reduce the need for consultation with the Parliament. Last December a breakthrough was achiev-ed in talks over the instrument with both the Parliament and NGOs hailing the outcome as a victory for their side.

Environmental NGOs appear to have had more success than development NGOs. "We have probably been more successful than many other NGOs," says Tony Long, director of WWF’s European Policy Office. Apart from running effective campaigns, a consensus has built up around the environment agenda which is broadly supported by the EU institutions. Successive environment commissioners have also been close to the environmental lobby groups and have been effective in batting off corporate interest groups which can be opposed to environment-friendly policies.

Part of the reason for the success of the environmental NGOs in Brussels is the power that the Commission has to draft and enforce laws in this area and the fact that European citizens often see the EU as a watchdog against their own governments on environmental issues. "Eighty percent of environmental laws are drafted by the EU so the EU is not just a paper tiger it’s a real tiger," says Long.

The meeting of EU leaders in March was seen as one of the greatest victories for the environmental lobby groups, as member states agreed to cut carbon emissions and increase the use of green, renewable energies, in order to address climate change. As consensus across EU governments is growing to address this problem further, environmental NGOs can expect continued success in the future.

Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are a major feature of the Brussels networking environment and play an important role in the formation of policy at EU level.

• Primary Source