Intervention by Mats Engström at the ALTER-EU conference 9 October 2007

Many thanks for the invitation.

The title of this session is challenging:"The European Transparency Initiative and beyond". Paul de Clerck has given an overview of ALTER-EU and the fight over the European Transparency Initiative. I will try to place this initiative in a broader context, from the perspective of someone not directly involved in ALTER-EU.
But first, a few words about me. I am based in Stockholm, as an editorial writer at Aftonbladet, the biggest daily Swedish newspaper. Before becoming a journalist, I worked with European affairs in the government services for 12 years. So, I have seen a lot of lobbying from the view of policy-makers. Since 2002 I am following EU policies "from the other side", as a journalist.
When preparing these remarks, I thought of what I could contribute to this audience, where many have more extensive knowledge of today's decision-making. Maybe my double perspectives can give some added value.
Basically, my analysis is the same as I believe many of you do, having followed ALTER-EU and some of the organisations present here. There is not a level playing field between different interests in EU policy making. Commercial interests are often stronger than non-governmental organisations. Too much secrecy in the institutions and a lack of European public spaces for debate contribute to this unfair architecture of policy-making. However, there is a need also to remember and learn from the good examples. I have seen many cases in the Council of how effective environmental organisations are with small resources, just to mention one area. To me, the key for a more democratic EU is to empower people's movements. Politicians must do their part in challenging today's corporate power and supporting the role of NGOs.
I will not develop the analysis much more here, in order not to repeat what you already have discussed. Let me instead turn to some areas where it should be possible to do more to strengthen the role of NGOs and curb corporate power. I guess much of this is not new to you, but maybe there can be some proposals of interests.

First, a comment on transparency:

What you are doing with the campaign is extremely important. I have seen how corporate lobbying has changed good proposals and delayed improvements, for example on environmental protection. Let me take the auto and petroleum industries as just one example. There has been so much delaying of standards that could have been implemented much earlier.
To me, Siim Kallas seems honest and sincere in his efforts to increase transparency. I interviewed him some time ago and must confess that I was rather impressed, also by his earlier work in Estonia. However, he is up against strong interests and the task is not easy.
Your continued work on the European Transparency Initiative is very important and I share the view that rules on corporate lobbying should be mandatory, not voluntary.
However, I would like to point to another important issue which is under discussion now. The review of the regulation on public access to documents.
My experience from the Environment Council is that timing is essential to have any influence. Industry often has access to the latest documents, but I have seen so many good proposals prepared by environmental groups that arrived a day or two too late, or were not up-to-date with the latest state of play in the Council. To me, better transparency in the Council and quicker access to documents are crucial factors in creating a more level-playing field.
Another issue is to speed up the process in the Commission when responding to demands for access to documents. When I asked the Cabinet of Mr Piebalgs for documents from Vattenfall´s lobbying efforts, the first response was that the Cabinet never supplies information on contacts with third parties. Later, the General secretariat helped me get these documents, but it took a very long time.
I know a number of your organisations have voice your opinions on access to documents during the public consultation. One of the most important tasks now is in my view to put pressure on governments regarding the review of the regulation, before they have written their positions. The new member states could be particularly important in this respect. The Commission is of course writing the proposal, but don't forget to lobby in the capitals in time.
It should be possible to build a closer alliance on transparency between trade unions and other NGOs. The Bolkestein directive on services showed the need for more openness when the Commission prepares its proposals and during negotiations in the Council. This has made trade unions more aware about the need for transparency. If you are to succeed with your work, I believe closer co-operation with trade unions is essential.

Secondly, on the media

When I wrote this book, Maktkamp Europa ("Power struggle in Europe"), I looked rather closely at the media coverage of the Reach negotiations. To me, it is evident that the few existing Europe-wide media took the part of industry. This goes for the Financial Times, giving much space to industry's ridiculous cost estimates and writing editorials about "Over-reach", not to mention The Economist which swallowed almost everything from the chemicals lobby.
Media is the subject of a later session but let me point at the importance of alternative public spaces. There are many good example, newsletters, blogs, Internet sites like Euractiv and EUObserver,
Maybe NGOs could think even further on alternative media. There might still be too much sector approaches in NGOs. That is natural, since there is so much to do in the field of environment for example. But by combining forces even more a lot could be gained.
Take think-tanks for example and the proliferation of right-wing, industry financed institutes, well exposed by Corporate Europe Observatory. Would it not be possible to convince trade unions to help financing some independent think-tanks across Europe on issues important to NGOs? Look for example at Verdi´s co-operation with Attac Germany or at Unison as a major partner at the European Social Forum in London. Other ideas could be joint educational efforts, and more systematic networking between NGOs in member states.
Another idea is for NGOs to finance a joint news agency on EU affairs (under editorial independence). Is this unrealistic? Well, look at Indymedia on globalization, not always my favourite source of information, but it has established a public space of its own where there was a gap before. Or look at OpenDemocracy.net.
Maybe it could also be possible to facilitate information on corporate lobbying in different countries through a European web-site dedicated to national examples, where it would be easy to publish links to reports, articles in the national press, etc.

Thirdly, the forthcoming treaty changes could bring benefits.

I know many NGO´s have worked quite a lot on this. Participatory democracy, citizens´ initiative - you can claim a lot of the credit. I am looking forward to hearing more of the ideas on how these parts of the Treaty can be implemented when it enters into force.
Maybe there is a link here to the not so easy task of Margot Wallström, in charge of the Commission's communication policy. Her approach is right. Communication is not a one-way delivery of messages, it should be a dialogue and part of a stronger participatory democracy. There have been some good proposals from the Commission, for example on European political parties. The Communication last week contained some important initiatives.
It is important to continue lobbying for a strong communication policy. For example, parliament should try to increase the economic support to transboundary public spaces, such as independent media, public seminars and transnational NGOs. The "right to information" concept should be developed in more detail. What has been lacking so far, in my view, is the clear commitment of President Barroso and the General secretariat, as well as money. This should be an area for more intense lobbying.
It could also be useful to analyze in more depth what other treaty changes could imply. Take foreign policy, where there will be significant institutional changes. What rules - including transparency - will apply to High Representative as part of both the Commission and the Council? What happens when the pillar structure disappears?

Fourthly, there are some areas with a lack of strong NGOs where your work could be particularly important.

One such area is the military capacity of the EU, where the defence industry has been lobbying hard for "high-end" parts of equipment such as advanced missiles, and where softer means like better civil-military co-operation do not get enough attention.
Another area is discrimination against immigrants, a corporate power issue in the sense that exploitation still is a part of European economy.
Finally, there is a need for more transparency in the EU´s work on terrorism. I don't have time to discuss this at length here, but I have written for OpenDemocracy on the secret action plan against radicalization and recruitment to terrorism. This is maybe not directly linked to the corporate agenda but it is one of the most astonishing developments I have seen in the EU, where governments in secret have agreed far-reaching measures affecting citizens´ fundamental rights.
Defence policy and measures against terrorism have one thing (at least) in common - the lack of transparency in the Council. To me, Javier Solana has a specific responsibility for a lot of unnecessary secrecy, keeping sensitive issues away from public debate. One important task, I believe, is to convince his successor that transparency is necessary in order to have citizens confidence.

Fifthly, global co-operation.

When I started working in the Swedish Ministry of Environment in the early 1990s we fought to keep higher Swedish environmental standards against industry demands to harmonize with EU legislation. Now, lobbying has moved up one level, to the global arena where EU decisions are being challenged in the WTO and other institutions. You probably know the recent case with ICAO and the emission-trading scheme for aviation. We have conflicts over GMOs, antibiotics etc.
There are a number of experts on this present here and I will only say that more NGO co-operation on WTO issues is utterly needed. The Global Europe strategy with more bilateral agreements makes transparency even more important than before. I believe this is one issue where you could put as much pressure as possible on the European political parties when they formulate their platforms for the next European elections.
Transparency issues should also form an important part of EU relations with other countries. For example, the EU should push for the Århus convention on the right to environmental information to be extended to other countries and other areas.

There is more to say but I will stop here and hope that I have kept myself reasonably within the time allocated to the introductions. I am looking forward to the discussion. Once again, many thanks for the invitation.


Contact details: Mats.engstrom@aftonbladet.se
www.matsengstrom.se