Cloudy future for EU transparency bid

Last week, Administrative Affairs Commissioner Siim Kallas unveiled his heavily trailed Green Paper for a European Transparency Initiative. As expected the paper sets out the European Commission's ideas for bringing more openness to how Brussels's estimated 15,000 lobbyists influence decision making.

But Kallas had few surprises, proposing a range of voluntary measures for corporate and special interest groups, including a register of lobbyists. In return for registering they would be included in consultations by the Commission.

He also proposed a common code of conduct based on minimum standards, with monitoring and sanctions. To complete the chain of transparency, the Green Paper asks interested parties (mainly member states) if there should be an obligation to disclose the names of people and companies who receive around EUR 70-80 billion a year from the EU's farm support and regional development funds. Currently ten of the 25 member states do so and the information has fuelled debate about reform of the EU's farm policy after it emerged that private companies such as Swiss food giant Nestl�nd rich landowners receive hundreds of millions of euro each year.

Interested parties will now have until August to make their views known on Kallas's Green Paper.

Initial reactions have been predictable. From the corporate lobbying sector, the response has been positive. Rogier Chorus, president of the Society of European Affairs Professionals (SEAP), welcomed Kallas's preference for a voluntary approach, saying a compulsory system would "not be feasible or acceptable". Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) on the other hand have been critical. ALTER-EU, an umbrella group of 140 civil society groups, said the Commission's proposals would "fail to deliver transparency around lobbying" and would not "improve public trust in the EU institutions". Paul de Clerck of Friends of the Earth Europe, the conservation group, said that current codes of conduct lacked "independent monitoring and effective sanctions".

Within a couple of days, Greenpeace, the environmental group, published information it claimed illustrated one of the omissions of the Green Paper - the failure to tackle so-called revolving door cases when Commission staff leave to work for the private sector on issues they have covered as officials.

The group claimed that three Commission officials who had worked on the EU's REACH strategy on chemicals safety either left to work for the European chemicals industry association CEFIC or chemicals companies, or came from industry to work in the Commission.

The Commission's res-ponse has been muddled with a spokesman saying initially that none of the three individuals cited by Greenpeace had worked on REACH, then admitting that one had. NGOs have also complained about former directors-general (DG) taking up private sector positions where they could use expertise gained from their Commission posts. They have singled out former enterprise DG Jean-Paul Mingasson who moved to become general adviser at the European employers' federation UNICE and Jim Currie, former environment DG who joined British Nuclear Fuels Limited.

Kallas has stressed that such cases are covered by internal procedures. Commission officials who leave the service are bound by rules on staff integrity and have to inform the institution of plans to take paid employment.

DG Administration gives a view on whether taking up a post in the private sector would represent a conflict of interest and the Comm-ission has refused requests from individuals, or imposed restrictions on the areas in which they could work or required delays ('cooling-off periods').

The Commission believes that it is in the "interests of the institution" to take people from the outside as their expertise can improve understanding of technical issues.

But these arguments are rejected by NGOs. Greenpeace's Jorgo Riss, referring to the REACH case, said that the Commission had a "culture of secrecy" and demanded "full information" about officials involved in drafting the legislation.

While it would be unfair to expect EU officials to end their careers on leaving the institutions, allegations of conflicts of interest are difficult to disprove. This could be a case where Kallas's idea for an independent committee on ethical standards in public life might prove useful. Decisions on whether staff would be allowed to take up private sector jobs could be referred to this body so that the Commission is no longer acting as judge and jury.

But this body would only come into force if the other institutions, notably the European Parliament, agreed. This is the problem facing the transparency initiative. Whether it delivers major advances in openness by the end of the mandate depends on the willingness of the other institutions to play ball.

Moral injunctions to spur member states and the Parliament to raise standards of transparency might not be enough to win the fight.

Green Paper on Transparency

Lobbying

• Voluntary registration of lobbyists (corporate, law firms, NGOs, trade associations)
• Applicants would have to provide information on who they represent, their objectives and how they are funded
• Registered lobbyists would be proactively consulted by the Commission
• Applicants would sign up to a code of conduct overseen by the Commission, based on common minimum standards
• Code should include monitoring and sanctions mechanisms
• The Commission will consider compulsory measures if voluntary approach fails

Disclosure of beneficiaries of eu funds

• All member states could be asked to make information available on end-recipients of EU funds

Article reports on initial reactions to the European Commission's Green Paper on a European Transparency Initiative, adopted on 3 May 2006.

European Commission: Consultation on the European Transparency Initiative http://ec.europa.eu/comm/eti/index.htm

---