Intoduction to EU lobbying

3 415 vues

Publié le

Cours donné en DES managelent international et multiculturel à ICHEC Entreprises le 28/1/2010

0 commentaire
3 j’aime
Statistiques
Remarques
  • Soyez le premier à commenter

Aucun téléchargement
Vues
Nombre de vues
3 415
Sur SlideShare
0
Issues des intégrations
0
Intégrations
17
Actions
Partages
0
Téléchargements
193
Commentaires
0
J’aime
3
Intégrations 0
Aucune incorporation

Aucune remarque pour cette diapositive
  • Clearly, the point is to get in early-before the policy mould sets or before it has been created.
  • Across Europe, the energy ( 7.26 ) and healthcare & pharmaceuticals ( 7.14 ) industries are perceived as the most effective. In Brussels, in addition to energy ( 7.6 ) and healthcare ( 7.13 ), the agricultural ( 7.46 ) and chemicals ( 7.33 ) sectors are recognised as being among the most effective.
  • Austria, France, Greece, Italy, Norway and the UK.
  • Intoduction to EU lobbying

    1. 1. IF YOU DON’T CARE ABOUT EUROPE, EUROPE TAKES CARE OF YOU Basic EU Lobbying DESMIM 28/1/2010 Jacques Folon Partner Just In Time Management Group Professeur ICHEC – ISFSC Professeur invité Université de Metz
    2. 2. Pour vous un lobbyist c’est ?
    3. 5. 1. The EU institutions 2. The EU legislative process 3. Why ? 4. Who are the lobbyists 5. How to ? 6. What the lobbied think 7. The code of conduct
    4. 6. Europe or Europe(s)
    5. 7. Many institutions <ul><li>Europe in OECD, WTO,… </li></ul><ul><li>Schengen </li></ul><ul><li>Economic and social comittee </li></ul><ul><li>Committee of the regions </li></ul><ul><li>European Investment bank </li></ul><ul><li>European environment Agency </li></ul><ul><li>Europol </li></ul><ul><li>Group of 27 </li></ul><ul><li>Etc… </li></ul>
    6. 8. 1. The EU Institutions EUROPEAN COMMISSION proposes, manages, regulates EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT comments, amends, decides COUNCIL OF MINISTERS negotiates, decides MEMBER STATE implements EUROPEAN COURT adjudicates ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE represents economic and social groups COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS represents local governments EUROPEAN COUNCIL sets the agenda
    7. 9. Un petit rappel
    8. 10. <ul><li>Huit années de négociations et de péripéties </li></ul><ul><li>L’histoire du Traité de Lisbonne est étroitement liée à celle du Traité constitutionnel . Le projet de Constitution européenne trouve ses origines dans la Déclaration de Laeken du Conseil européen du 15 décembre 2001. </li></ul><ul><li>Une « Convention » a été mise en place, chargée de travailler sur la révision des traités existants. Le mandat de la Convention reposait sur trois missions : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>travailler sur une répartition plus claire des compétences, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>simplifier les instruments de l’Union et </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>instaurer davantage de démocratie, de transparence et d’efficacité dans son fonctionnement. </li></ul></ul>
    9. 11. Le «Traité établissant une Constitution pour l’Europe » est alors signé par les Etats membres et la Turquie le 24 octobre 2004 mais les référendums défavorables en France et aux Pays-Bas en mai et juin 2005 bloquent le processus. Pour sortir de l’impasse, le Conseil Européen, réuni à Bruxelles les 16 et 17 juin 2005, propose d’ouvrir une « période de réflexion » . Après de nombreuses négociations, l’idée d’un traité minimal s’impose. Les Etats membres décident en juin 2007 de convoquer une nouvelle Conférence intergouvernementale, avec pour mission de rédiger un traité simplifié avant la fin de l’année 2007.
    10. 12. Le texte est officiellement signé par les Etats membres lors du Sommet européen de Lisbonne du 13 décembre 2007 . puis deux années de ratification (dont le Referendum irlandais et les hésitations des Présidents polonais et tchèques…). Entrée en vigueur le 1er décembre 2009 .
    11. 13. La structure de base des traités européens Avant   Lisbonne Traité de Rome sur la Communauté européenne (1957), pilier communautaire. Traité de Maastricht sur l’Union européenne (1992) qui lui a ajouté 2 piliers indépendants, plus intergouvernementaux , dans les domaines de la Politique étrangère et de sécurité commune (PESC) et de la coopération dans les domaines de la Justice et des Affaires Intérieures (JAI) .
    12. 14. Après Lisbonne Le Traité de Lisbonne modifie les 2 Traités fondateurs en ramenant la structure de l’Union à un bloc unique . Il supprime en effet les trois piliers pour ne laisser substituer que l’Union européenne. Traité de Maastricht sur l’Union européenne (TUE). Traité de Rome sur le Fonctionnement de l’Union européenne (TFUE).
    13. 15. Dans cette nouvelle configuration, l’Union se voit par ailleurs attribuer la personnalité juridique . Elle pourra ainsi conclure des accords internationaux dans tous les domaines relevant de sa compétence. Le « traité minimal » de Lisbonne se présente comme un texte de 152 pages de modifications aux Traités de Rome et de Maastricht. Il comporte sept articles, soit  350 dispositions de droit primaire, auxquels s’ajoutent 13 protocoles et 59 déclarations.
    14. 16. Principales innovations du Traité de Lisbonne Un Président du Conseil européen (et non un Président européen). Un Haut représentant de l’Union pour les affaires étrangères et la politique de sécurité (et non un Ministre des Affaires Etrangères), également Vice-président de la Commission . Un renforcement des compétences du Parlement .
    15. 17. Des compétences d’attribution précisées – subsidiarité et proportionnalité Généralisation de la procédure de codécision (Conseil – Commission - Parlement) Révision des modalités de la majorité qualifiée ( nombre d’Etats + Population) Rôle accru des parlements nationaux Droit d’Initiative Populaire – 1 million de citoyens « d’un nombre significatif d’Etats membres »
    16. 18. Création d'un poste de Président semi-permanent du Conseil européen (l'organe où se réunissent les chefs d'Etats et de gouvernement + le HR/VP + Président de la Commission ). Le Conseil européen est élevé au niveau d’institution. Confié au Belge Herman Van Rompuy pour deux ans et demi renouvelables une fois. Jusqu'ici, la présidence de l'UE à ce niveau passait d'un pays à l'autre tous les six mois. Ce nouvel acteur participera certainement au renforcement de l’image extérieure de l’Union .
    17. 19. Création d’un poste de Haut représentant de l’Union pour les affaires étrangères et la politique de sécurité, également Vice-président de la Commission. Responsable de la politique étrangère et de sécurité commune de l’Union, il assure la cohérence de l’action extérieure de l’Union. Poste confié à la Britannique Cathy Ashton pour 5 ans. Le HR/VP se substitue à deux personnages du système actuel : le Haut représentant pour la politique extérieure et de sécurité commune (PESC) et le Commissaire chargé des relations extérieures. Il relève donc à la fois du Conseil européen et de la Commission. Le HR/VP sera à la tête d’un Service Européen d’Action Extérieure , avec des Délégations de l’Union Européenne dans les pays tiers.
    18. 20. Commission Le Traité revoit la composition actuelle de la Commission. Jusqu’en 2014, il prévoit le maintien de la règle un commissaire par Etat membre et, au-delà de cette date, le nombre de commissaires sera égal aux 2/3 des Etats membres. Dans cette nouvelle configuration, le Président de la Commission voit ses pouvoirs renforcés. Il pourra, par exemple, mettre fin au mandat de l’un des membres de la Commission sans avoir, au préalable, sollicité l’autorisation du collège des commissaires.    
    19. 21. 2. Le processus législatif
    20. 22. The European Parliament
    21. 23. <ul><li>Seule institution dont les membres sont des élus directs </li></ul><ul><li>Participe a la législation européenne </li></ul><ul><li>Les textes sont d’abord discutés en comité avant d’etre soumis au vote en séance plénière </li></ul><ul><li>Pour chaque texte un rapporteur est designé au sein du comite principal </li></ul><ul><li>Un « shadow rapporteur » pour chaque groupe politique </li></ul><ul><li>Les autres comites peuvent aussi intervenir et nomment également un rapporteur et des « shadow rapporteurs » </li></ul><ul><li>Dans chaque groupe politique un « coordinateur » est désigné </li></ul>
    22. 24. Parlement européen par groupe
    23. 25. Répartition hommes/femmes
    24. 26. Les comit é s
    25. 27. La Commission
    26. 28. <ul><li>Initiateur du processus </li></ul><ul><li>Pouvoir exécutif </li></ul><ul><li>Gardien du traite </li></ul><ul><li>Représente l’Union </li></ul><ul><li>Autorité de contrôle (concurrence) </li></ul>
    27. 29. Development of a proposal Draft Proposal from DG Responsible Inter-service consultation: Other DGs consulted Legal Services Examination Heads of Cabinet Commission College: Adoption of the Proposal
    28. 30. Le Conseil
    29. 31. The basics… <ul><li>Consists of Member State representatives </li></ul><ul><li>Meets in different formations according to policy areas (e.g.: Environment, Agriculture, Health) </li></ul><ul><li>Main decision-making body of EU </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Co-legislator with Parliament </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Concludes international agreements on behalf of EU </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Decision making: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Decisions by qualified majority with system of weighted votes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Shifting alliances </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Slowing down with 27 Member States </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Essentially the domain of government officials </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Politicians only called in for to rubber stamp final decisions </li></ul></ul>
    30. 32. <ul><li>Rotating Presidency every six months </li></ul><ul><li>New role for council president ? </li></ul><ul><li>Current Presidency until end June 2010: Spain </li></ul><ul><li>Following presidencies: Belgium, Hungary </li></ul><ul><li>In practice, depending on the Member State each Presidency is different and quality varies </li></ul>EU Council Presidency
    31. 33. The Council: internal structure Council of Ministers COREPER Council Working Groups Presidency: manages process and work-flow Input from Member States
    32. 34. = 345 Total France Germany Italy UK Spain Poland NL Belgium Greece Portugal Czech R. Hungary Sweden Austria Bulgaria Denmark Ireland Finland Slovakia Lithuania Lux. Latvia Slovenia Estonia Cyprus Qualified Majority = 255 Simple Majority of Member States 62% of EU population (on request) Malta 27 Romania 29 14 12 13 10 7 4 3 The Council: votes
    33. 35. Council Working Groups - Member State Officials - Attachés 27 Delegations composed of Tour de table= 135 minutes
    34. 36. The « compromis à la belge » system <ul><li>The H word: Harmonisation. </li></ul><ul><li>What does it means </li></ul><ul><li>Where does it start? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Your company </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Your region compromise 1 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Your country compromise 2 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Your national federation compromise 3 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The eu organization compromise 4 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The co-decision compromise 5 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The various lobbies compromise 6 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The final text compromise 7 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The implementation compromise 8 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>That’s harmonization folks… </li></ul></ul>
    35. 37. Anatomy of EU Power Legislative Process Proposed amendment Political benediction Policy concepts communication initiatives Formal proposals (Commission monopoly) Implementation by Member Stares Much stronger veto EP Member States QMV Common Position Commission Heads of State + Government European Parliament Policy development Research “ Green Papers ” “ Programmes ” Work programmes Draft legislation Internal + external consultation Management + Regulatory responsabilities Council of (relevant) Ministers debate Policy communication Consultation Conclusions/ Recommendations Resolutions etc . Member State Expert Groups Member State Management + Consultative Committees European Commission Member States QMV Conciliation?
    36. 38. OCT 01 EUROPEAN COMMISSION EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (EP) COUNCIL OF MINISTERS (EU MEMBER STATES) COMMISSION PROPOSAL EP PLENARY VOTE (1st READING) COUNCIL ADOPTS COMMON POSITION (1st STAGE AGREEMENT) OCT 02 NOV 03 COUNCIL AGREES AND ADOPTS COREPER REJECTS SOME EP AMENDMENTS EP AND COUNCIL MEET TO NEGOTIATE COMPROMISE TEXT (CONCILIATION PROCEDURE) DIRECTIVE IS ADOPTED REJECTION JAN 04 OCT 02 MEMBER STATES IMPLEMENT DIRECTIVE INTO NATIONAL LEGISLATION / REQUIREMENTS OF REGULATION BECOME APPLICABLE EP COMMITTEES DISCUSS DRAFT REPORT/OPINIONS OCT 03 DEC 03 COMMISSION AMENDED PROPOSAL FEB-APRIL 04 MAY 02 EP ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE VOTE EP ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE DISCUSSION EP PLENARY VOTE (2nd READING) EP ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE VOTE EC EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE RECEIVES COMMON POSITION (2nd READING) JAN 04 EP No later than 18 months after adoption CL FEB 04 OCT 01 EP EC: Commission CL: Council EP: Parliament RAPPORTEURS TABLE DRAFT REPORTS/OPINIONS TRIALOGUE (EP, COM, COUNCIL) RAPPORTEURS APPOINTED NOV 03 CL DEADLINE FOR AMENDMENTS CL JUNE 03 HEALTH WORKING GROUP MEETINGS JAN 04 EC COUNCIL HEALTH WORKING GROUP INTENSE NEGOTIATIONS COMMISSION AMENDED PROPOSAL Co-Decision is now the norm
    37. 39. 3. POURQUOI LE LOBBYING ?
    38. 40. Bruxelles : une place incontournable pour les acteurs économiques européens… <ul><li>80% de la législation nationale est d’origine communautaire </li></ul><ul><li>Une présence nécessaire pour: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Anticiper les évolutions réglementaires </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Faire entendre sa voix de manière utile, en temps opportun </li></ul></ul></ul>
    39. 41. <ul><li>DES PROJETS ET DES TEXTES DE DIVERSES PROVENANCES </li></ul>Programmes pluriannuels de la Commission européenne Ex : Programme 2007-2013 en faveur de la protection des consommateurs Programmes communs des trios de Présidences Du Conseil de l’Union européenne - Espagne, Belgique, Hongrie Rapports d’initiatives du Parlement européen Plans d’action de la Commission européenne Ex : Plan d’action en faveur de la signature et de l’identification électroniques Travaux préparatoires et consultatifs de la Commission européenne Consultation Livre Vert, Livre Blanc, Études, Rapport Proposition législative de la Commission européenne Directive ou Règlement Vote par le Parlement et le Conseil
    40. 42. les différents instruments à la disposition de la Commission <ul><li>Plan d’action </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Liste des initiatives à venir – Annuel ou Pluriannuel </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Livre Vert </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Document ouvert - consultation Questions, options à débattre ? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Livre Blanc </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Orientation centrale soumise à discussion </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Communication </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Orientation centrale soumise à discussion : </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Directive </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Instrument contraignant les EM quant aux objectifs à atteindre, délai de transposition </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Réglement </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Instrument contraignant. Rentre directement dans l’ordre juridique national. </li></ul></ul></ul>DG/Département Juridique
    41. 43. Le triangle institutionnel Conseil La voix des Etats membres Commission La voix de l’UE Parlement La voix des citoyens
    42. 44. Relations entre institutions PARLEMENT EUROPEEN [785 députés] COMMISSION EUROPEENNE [27 commissaires] COUR DE JUSTICE Respect du droit communautaire Proposition Exécution CONSEIL EUROPEEN [Chefs d ’Etat et de gouvernement + le Président de la Commission] Impulsion politique COUR DES COMPTES Consultation Contrôle des Finances communautaires CONSEIL DES MINISTRES [27 pays] Contrôle Vote COMITE ECONOMIQUE ET SOCIAL COMITE DES REGIONS
    43. 45. Bruxelles : multiplicité des acteurs Commission Parlement Conseil des Ministres Services financiers FBE, EACB, ESBG, GEBC, EUROFINAS, EFAMA, CEA, …) Think tanks (Eurofi, Bruegel, CEPS, EPC, …) Consultants en Affaires UE & cabinets d’avocat Medias & journaux Syndicats d’industrie locaux (MEDEF, FBF, AFG, …) Secteur privé (Crédit Agricole S.A., Daimler Chrysler , …) Les régions & Collectivités locales ONG Organisations Internationales (NUs, Banque Mondiale, …) Chambres de commerce et d’industrie Groupes de Consommateurs (BEUC) Représentations des Etats membres Syndicats de branche d’activité (Business Europe, EBIC, ACEA, CEFIC, …) Syndicats de Travailleurs (ETUC, …)
    44. 46. Organisation d’une veille Veille règlementaire européenne Syndicats d’industrie (FBE, FBF, EACB, GEBC, Eurofinas, …) Think tank Consultants spécialisés Affaires UE Medias & journaux Institutions Européennes Correspondant à Bruxelles Direction juridique Affaires Européennes Direction stratégiques Direction Economique Lignes de métier
    45. 47. Et un besoin de relais à Bruxelles <ul><ul><li>Les associations et fédérations européennes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Avec le soutien d’un cabinet en affaires européennes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Et des entrées et contacts réguliers auprès du Parlement et de la Commission : </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Il existait déjà un enregistrement au Parlement européen </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>La Commission a créé le 23/06/2008 un nouveau registre volontaire des représentants d’intérêts auprès de la Commission européenne. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Il est destiné à : « permettre aux citoyens de savoir quels sont les intérêts, généraux ou spécifiques, qui influencent le processus décisionnel des institutions européennes, et quels sont les ressources mobilisées à cette fin» </li></ul></ul></ul>
    46. 48. 4. Qui sont les lobbies?
    47. 49. What are interest groups? <ul><li>An interest group (also called an advocacy group, lobbying group, pressure group (UK), or special interest) is a group, however loosely or tightly organized, doing advocacy: those determined to encourage or prevent changes in public policy without trying to be elected. </li></ul>
    48. 50. What are interest groups? <ul><li>Interest groups </li></ul><ul><li>are political organizations established to influence governmental action in a specific area of policy. This could be done by persuading legislators, working through a regulatory bureaucracy, engaging in legal proceedings, or other means. </li></ul>
    49. 51. Lobbying <ul><li>Lobbying is an attempt to influence policy-makers to adopt a course of action advantageous, or not detrimental, to a particular group or interest. A lobbyist is a person employed by a group, firm, region or country to carry out lobbying. Lobbyists in Brussels are also known as consultants or public affairs practitioners </li></ul>
    50. 52. Theoretical approaches <ul><li>Power of interest groups . </li></ul><ul><li>Some authors find the existence of the interest groups as disturbing democratic process. </li></ul><ul><li>For these Authors, powerful groups dominate politics and impose their own interests at the extend of common interests. </li></ul><ul><li>Different from political parties, they are not aspiring for formal political power both in the government or in the parliament. </li></ul><ul><li>As such they are not subject to democratic control (via election). They participate in the political process through lobbies with representatives and government officials. </li></ul>
    51. 53. <ul><li>Pluralism. </li></ul><ul><li>The main character of a democratic system is competition of interest. </li></ul><ul><li>Common interests are not what the state defines, but a result of political bargaining in the society, in the diversity of interests represented by various autonomous interest groups. </li></ul>Theoretical approaches
    52. 54. Theoretical approaches <ul><li>Corporatism. </li></ul><ul><li>This theory assumes a close association between state and interest groups. </li></ul><ul><li>Interest groups within this system have special characteristics: officially recognised, monopoly of representation within particular sectors. </li></ul><ul><li>It is political participation of different style or, more appropriately, part of a regulation system rather than competitive participation in the political process. </li></ul><ul><li>It does not reflect the influence of the society’s interests. Rather it reflects the problems of conflicts of society’s interests in the state. </li></ul>
    53. 55. Some Numbers <ul><li>Approximate number of all EU employees </li></ul><ul><ul><li>35.000 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Approximate number of all lobbyists with the EU </li></ul><ul><ul><li>15.000 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Approximate number of lobbyists in Washington DC </li></ul><ul><ul><li>35.000 </li></ul></ul>
    54. 56. Main types of IG’s in the EU <ul><li>Private interests, pursuing specific economic goals </li></ul><ul><li>1300 (plus 270 law firms and consultancies) </li></ul><ul><li>Public interest bodies, pursuing non-economic aims </li></ul><ul><li>300 (plus 40 think tanks) </li></ul><ul><li>Governmental actors, representing different levels of government but not forming part of the national administration of member states </li></ul><ul><li>360 (embassies, regional bureaus, cities) </li></ul>
    55. 57. Private economic interests <ul><li>Most represented </li></ul><ul><ul><li>150 groups – chemical industry </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>140 groups – food and drink sector </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>88 groups – agriculture and fisheries </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Best represented – Pan-european groups: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Union of Industrial and Employers’ Confederations (UNICE) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>European Trades Union Confederation (ETUC) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Committee of Agricultural Organizations (COPA) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>They also participate in the Economic and Social Committee of the European Commission </li></ul></ul>
    56. 58. Private economic interests <ul><li>The biggest enterprises are not only members of different interest groups but have their own lobbying offices in Brussels (Philips, IBM, Philip Morris) </li></ul><ul><li>320 major European enterprises have full-time EU public affairs directors </li></ul><ul><li>Chambers of commerce don’t come only from EU countries but also from the US, Turkey, Norway, Morocco, or the Philippines </li></ul>
    57. 59. Public interest bodies <ul><li>Among the most active are environmental, public health, human rights, animal welfare NGOs </li></ul><ul><li>Also includes think tanks </li></ul><ul><li>Many smaller organizations actually get funding by the EU </li></ul>
    58. 60. Governmental Actors <ul><li>167 Non-EU country embassies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mostly try to influence EUs trade and aid policies </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Delegations from local authorities or regional bodies: German Länder, Scottish Executive, … </li></ul><ul><ul><li>some of the delegations are cross-border enterprises </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Committee of Region is an official advisory body to the European Commission </li></ul></ul>
    59. 61. <ul><li>5. How to lobby ? </li></ul>
    60. 62. Council Adoption Commission (amendments) Parliament (2nd reading) Council = Common Position COREPER Council Working Group Commission proposal 24/30 months Commission involvement throughout Conciliation EP/ Council Commission (revision) Parliament (1st reading) Council Working Group The Lobbying pyramid
    61. 63. How to Lobby the council <ul><li>Influencing the Council can be done at two levels: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>National governments and ministries </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Permanent representations in Brussels </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Important to build support around an issue in enough member states so as to ensure a majority or a blocking minority </li></ul><ul><li>Lobbying the government is key in order to influence the Council’s position </li></ul>
    62. 64. How to lobby the commission <ul><li>The Commission is a technocratic body, and officials respond to data and arguments </li></ul><ul><li>However, when lobbying you need to be aware of different DGs’ political priorities, and those of the Commissioner </li></ul><ul><li>One DG is responsible for a dossier, but agreement is reached by the Commission as a whole and different DGs interact throughout out the adoption process of a proposal </li></ul><ul><li>Within the same DG, it is important to work your way up the Commission’s structure: from the policy officer to the head of unit, to the Director and finally the Cabinet. </li></ul><ul><li>The right moment to influence the Commission is when they are in process of drafting the proposal </li></ul><ul><li>During the adoption of legislation the Commission is present at each stage of the discussions and a key player, do not underestimate its influence </li></ul>
    63. 65. Checklist <ul><li>Identifiez vos objectifs business </li></ul><ul><li>comprenez le ssystème et son processus </li></ul><ul><li>Etablissz les objectifs du lobbying </li></ul><ul><li>Obtenez des chiffres et données </li></ul><ul><li>ayez une stratégie adptable en temps réel </li></ul><ul><li>le processus législatif est long: commencez tôt et soez constant </li></ul><ul><li>cohérence et coordination </li></ul><ul><li>Contact permanent avec les officiels, les politiques, les autres </li></ul><ul><li>Créez des relations </li></ul>
    64. 66. Checklist of key points <ul><li>Know your business objective </li></ul><ul><li>Understand the system: its politics and processes </li></ul><ul><li>Establish the right lobbying objective </li></ul><ul><li>Obtain good intelligence </li></ul><ul><li>Review and revise strategy in real-time </li></ul><ul><li>GR is a process – start early and follow through </li></ul><ul><li>Consistency and co-ordination are keywords </li></ul><ul><li>Contact is key – with politicians, officials, others </li></ul><ul><li>Build relationships </li></ul>
    65. 67. Influencing the Enlarged EU: Conclusions for Business <ul><li>Start early in the process </li></ul><ul><li>Mobilise support </li></ul><ul><li>Target the right actors </li></ul><ul><li>Build and maintain relationships </li></ul><ul><li>Increase focus on the EP </li></ul><ul><li>Watch out for a “multi-speed Europe” </li></ul>
    66. 68. The Burson-Marsteller Campaign Model
    67. 69. 6. What do the lobbied think?
    68. 70. The results of the Burson-Marsteller 2009 Lobbying Survey
    69. 71. Methodology of the survey <ul><li>50 interviews in Brussels and 30 interviews were completed in: </li></ul><ul><li>Austria, Czech, Germany, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden, Spain and UK. </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><li>Audience definitions comprised of these criteria: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>   Senior decision makers in Government or civil service occupation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>   Interact with lobbyists very often, quite often or occasionally </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Very or somewhat high interest in current affairs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The interviews were undertaken by PSB through a mixture of online, phone and face to face interviews. </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><li>Dates of fieldwork: October 2008– July 2009 </li></ul>
    70. 72. Who are the lobbyists? <ul><li>The most recognised lobbyists overall are: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>61% : Trade associations (Germany 58%) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>57% : Public affairs agencies (Germany 58%) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>50% : NGOs (Germany 45%) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Recognition for these top categories of lobbyist is highest in Nordic, Austria and Brussels and generally low for most categories of lobbyist in France, Hungary and Spain. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A Brussels particularity: 56% of respondents deem lawyers as lobbyists starkly contrasting with the overall 24% ( Germany 35%) </li></ul></ul>
    71. 73. What are the positive aspects of lobbying? <ul><ul><li>National respondents mostly viewed lobbyist as a means to raise local and national issues with a 50% average </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>This peaks in Germany ( 74% ), the UK ( 72% ) and Italy ( 70% ) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Providing information at the right time peaks in Germany ( 65%) </li></ul><ul><li>By contrast to Brussels, the top positive aspects of lobbying are perceived as: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Sharing expertise : 60% ( Germany 61%) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Ensuring the that technical information is made intelligible: 58% (48%) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Lobbying is a constructive part of the democratic process: 52% (48%) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Compared to a 48% EU average, only 3% of Polish respondents see lobbying as a constructive part of the democratic process </li></ul></ul>
    72. 74. What are the negative aspects of lobbying? <ul><ul><li>Overall across Europe, lobbying is seen to be lacking transparency ( 57% ) (G 65%) and not providing neutral information ( 55% ) (G 65%) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>90% of Poles see lack of transparency as a major problem of lobbying (Germany 65%) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Figures collected in Brussels are in line with the overall average </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In striking contrast to the overall 23% average, 58% of German regulators and politicians see lobbying as exerting an undue influence on the democratic process </li></ul></ul>
    73. 75. How transparent are lobbyists? <ul><li>NGOs received higher ratings in Northern European countries (e.g. 8.35 in Norway and 8.19 in Denmark) and Brussels ( 7.6 ) (Germany 6.8) </li></ul><ul><li>Brussels regulators and politicians largely share this view, with companies being seen as most transparent ( 7.96 ) (Germany 8.0) </li></ul><ul><li>In Brussels (and generally across Europe), public affairs agencies ( 5.71 ) (Germany 6.3) are seen as somewhat more transparent than law firms ( 5.33 ) (Germany 5.45) </li></ul>
    74. 76. What influences you to speak to a lobbyist? <ul><li>Transparency is, as in the countries surveyed, one of the main factors rating at 69% (Germany 74%) </li></ul><ul><li>The survey highlights that the Brussels respondents are most willing to speak to a lobbyist when the topic is in their field of expertise ( 73% ) (Germany 71%) or if it interests them ( 71% ) (Germany 55%) </li></ul><ul><li>Lobbiysts need to be particulary well prepared in Germany (71%) avg 40% </li></ul><ul><li>Listing on a register is a factor in deciding to speak to a lobbyist for only 29% (Germany 29%) of Brussels regulators and politicians. This contrast with an overall average low figure of 19% across Europe. This factor rates highest in Italy ( 50% ) where there is currently no public registry for lobbyists. </li></ul>
    75. 77. Which are the most effective lobbyist? <ul><ul><li>The ranking differs slightly for Brussels were NGOs rank third with 6.42 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Public Affairs agencies effectiveness peaks in Austria (6,72) and Germany (6,61%) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>All categories of lobbyists in the Netherlands are perceived as less effective with rates ranging from 4.68 for trade unions to 3.32 for companies </li></ul></ul>
    76. 78. Effectiveness of lobbying: Industry vs. NGO
    77. 79. Poor practices frequently commited by Industry & NGOs
    78. 80. Which sources are used to make a decision? <ul><li>An overwhelming 95% of respondents find that their best source is their own research, with peaks at 100% in six countries The next source of information identified are: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>93% : Colleagues </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>90% : Their staff </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>89% : National public authorities </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>87% : Internet </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Overall, 76% of the respondents find that the European institutions are a helpful source of information </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Interestingly the highest score for the European institutions is in Poland ( 97% ) and Italy ( 94% ), then followed shortly behind by Brussels respondents ( 92% ) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>NGOs come last as a source of information with 60% </li></ul></ul>
    79. 81. How best to best provide information <ul><li>Overall meetings are seen by half of the respondents as the most efficient manner to communicate information. This is followed by site visits ( 41% ) and written briefing material ( 35% ) (Germany 48%) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Respondents in Poland ( 77% ), Germany ( 68% ) and Hungary ( 67% ) found meetings was the most efficient manner to receive information </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Site visits are particular popular in Norway ( 60% ) (Germany 55 %) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Email and phone contacts rank far below (Germany 23/13%) </li></ul></ul></ul>
    80. 82. Good Lobbyists…(Commission view) Burston Marsteller study <ul><li>Provide balanced views </li></ul><ul><li>Target information </li></ul><ul><li>Give practical solutions </li></ul><ul><li>Mobilise other interest groups </li></ul><ul><li>Don’t waste time </li></ul><ul><li>Work in partnership with officials </li></ul><ul><li>React to requests </li></ul><ul><li>Keep in touch </li></ul><ul><li>Make timely interventions </li></ul><ul><li>Lobby EU capitals as well as Brussels </li></ul>
    81. 83. Bad Lobbyists…(Commission view) <ul><li>Lack understanding of what Commission can/can’t do </li></ul><ul><li>Don’t compromise </li></ul><ul><li>Make shallow arguments </li></ul><ul><li>Intervene too late </li></ul><ul><li>Bombard officials with E-mails </li></ul><ul><li>Are aggressive </li></ul><ul><li>Provide general information </li></ul><ul><li>Are unfocused </li></ul><ul><li>Rely on one-off contacts </li></ul><ul><li>Make little personal contact </li></ul>
    82. 85. In Conclusion: Lobbying the EU System <ul><li>Integral to EU legislative & regulatory system </li></ul><ul><li>Welcome if conducted in an ethical manner </li></ul><ul><li>Effective if intelligent and professional </li></ul><ul><li>Influence a function of interests represented </li></ul>
    83. 86. FINAL THOUGHTS… <ul><li>«  Everybody is a foreigner in Brussels » </li></ul><ul><li>Effectiveness = strategy and performance </li></ul><ul><li>« Networking » is the differentiating factor </li></ul><ul><li>“ Trust” is the essential personal asset </li></ul>
    84. 87. <ul><li>7. the lobbyist’s code of conduct </li></ul>
    85. 109. Les questions qui se posent… Encore !
    86. 113. Problems of Lobbying in the EU <ul><li>• Distorted information is provided to the EU institutions about the possible economic, social or environmental impact of draft legislative proposals. </li></ul><ul><li>• Modern communication technologies (internet and e-mail) make it easy to organise mass campaigns for or against a given cause, without the EU institutions being able to verify to what extent these campaigns reflect the genuine concerns of EU citizens. </li></ul>
    87. 114. <ul><li>The legitimacy of interest representation by European NGOs is sometimes questioned because some NGOs seem to rely on financial support from the EU budget as well as on political and financial support from their members. </li></ul><ul><li>• By contrast, according to many NGOs, there is no level playing field in lobbying because the corporate sector is able to invest more financial resources in lobbying. </li></ul><ul><li>• In general terms, there is criticism about the lack of information about the lobbyists active at EU level, including the financial resources which they have at their disposal. </li></ul>
    88. 115. Jacques Folon + 32 475 98 21 15 j [email_address] [email_address]
    89. 116. QUESTIONS ?
    90. 118. Sources and references <ul><li>EU commission web site http://europa.eu/index_fr.htm </li></ul><ul><li>Burson marsteller http://www.burson-marsteller.com/default.aspx </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.euractiv.com/fr/ </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.lobbying-europe.com/ </li></ul>

    ×