EULaw Blog: New rules wanted for EU regulatory agencies

Those interested in administrative law would do well to look at the Commission's review of regulatory agencies entitled "European Agencies - The Way Forward" (COM(2008) 135 final). That document is accompanied by another one, referenced SEC(2008) 323, but the Commission true to its secretive form has not made that document public!...see the EULawblog

PD. The report does not say anything about lobbying control or interest groups. But is useful to learn how the influence of regulatory administrative agency, the natural environment for lobbyists, is growing and growing......

European policy-makers know how to do it

Brussels looks more like Washington everyday. Just like former law makers in US go from public service to the corporate world in reward to their loyal service to special interest, comunitarian authorities find really profitable to favor corporate lobby....

Examples brought by Alter EU:

Jean-Paul Mingasson, former Director-General of the European Commission’s Directorate General (DG) for Enterprise and Industry (2002 – 2004) and for Budget (1989 – 2002) left the European Commission in 2004 to work as General Adviser to BusinessEurope (former UNICE), the confederations of European industrialists. During his office at the EC, Mr Mingasson was personally involved in the EU’s revised legislation for the regulation of chemicals in Europe: REACH, against which he begun lobbying as General Adviser to BusinessEurope.

James Currie, Former Director of DG Environment and responsible for Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection (1997-2001) has become, since then, a paid Non-Executive Director of British
Nuclear Fuels;

Leon Brittan, former EU Trade Commissioner, became a consultant on World Trade Organisation (WTO) issues at the law firm Herbert Smith, vice-chairman of the investment bank UBS Warburg and advisory director at Unilever just a year after leaving the European
Commission.

Info available at ater eu brouchure: here

Alter-EU warns on european rule-making process.

The european lobbyist resist themselves to public exposure. Alter-EU, the european watchdog for lobbying activities, is calling the attention on the current process of creating norms to control de lobby in Brussels

Commission’s Expert Groups dominated by industry

• Brussels, March 25 – Industry lobbyists are dominating the European law-making process, campaigners warned today with the publication of a new report analysing the membership of a number of the European Commission’s Expert Groups. What is more, the Commission is not being transparent about membership of these groups researchers say, preventing public accountability.

ALTER-EU – a coalition of 160 organisations concerned with transparency within Europe – is calling on the European Commission to dissolve some of its Expert Groups because of the dominance of industry lobbyists.

Its report "Secrecy and corporate dominance - a study on the composition and transparency of European Commission Expert Groups" reveals that industry controls a number of the Commission’s most controversial Expert Groups, including advisory groups on issues such as “biotechnology”, “clean coal” and “car emissions”.

Expert Groups are established by the Commission to provide advice on the development of new laws and policies, giving group members considerable power over EU policies and legislation, the report says.

ALTER-EU warns that public interest may be at risk given the predominance of industry representatives on some Expert Groups. In a study of Expert Groups advising on some of the most controversial issues, it found that industry representatives made up more than 50% of the membership of one in four of the groups surveyed. Almost two thirds of the groups were unbalanced and just 32% of the groups were composed of members representing a wide range of interests.

Report author Yiorgos Vassalos of Corporate Europe Observatory said:
“Expert Groups are responsible for shaping policies on some of the most controversial issues being dealt with by the European Commission. Information about who has access in this crucial initial stage of decision making is not made public, but our research shows that industry representatives are playing an important role. These groups should act in the public interest, but it appears that some are being allowed to further their own commercial interests.”

Information about the make-up and work of the different Expert Groups is not currently published by the Commission, with an online register only including very limited information as to who is represented on the groups.

Using the “access-to-documents” directive, researchers were able to obtain more details, but crucial information was still refused for commercial, security or ‘privacy’ reasons.

The survey shows that the Commission failed to provide necessary information. In 34% of all cases, there was no reply at all to the information request while in another 34% the Commission only provided partial information.

Paul de Clerck of Friends of the Earth Europe said:
“The Commission seems unwilling to provide information about who is on its Expert Groups, and in some cases does not even appear to know whether groups exist or not. This reveals an appalling attitude to transparency and public accountability in the law-making process.”

The EU Commission President José Manuel Barroso promised last year to make information available on Expert Group membership, following pressure from the European Parliament. In February this year the European Parliament stepped up pressure and called for an investigation into the composition of Expert Groups following further concerns about the lack of transparency.

ALTER-EU says that Expert Groups dominated by industry should be dissolved and methods must be found to prevent privileged access of Expert Groups. The Coalition is also demanding immediate disclosure of Expert Group membership, as promised by the Commission for this year..
ENDS

Contact:
Paul de Clerck, Friends of the Earth Europe, ph: 32-494380959, email: paul@milieudefensie.nl
Yiorgos Vassalos, Corporate Europe Observatory, ph: 30-6973524282, email: yiorgos@corporateeurope.org

For the full report: http://www.alter-eu.org/en/publications/secrecy-and-corporate-dominance-...

Notes:

(1) The Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Regulation (ALTER-EU) is a coalition of over 160 civil society groups, trade unions, academics and public affairs firms concerned with the increasing influence exerted by corporate lobbyists on the political agenda in Europe and the resulting loss of democracy in EU decision-making.

(2) For more details on the role of Expert Groups and the online register of groups see: http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/

(3) The European Parliament called for an investigation by the Commission in its "Report on transparency in financial matters" (2007/2141(INI))

(4) Summary findings from the report:

Access to Documents:

• In 34% of the cases, the European Commission failed to provide any information about the Expert Groups;
• In a further 34% of all cases the European Commission only provided partial information.
• The Commission only provided a complete and satisfactory response
  in 32% of the cases.
• In just 36% of the cases the European Commission provided information
  within the prescribed 15 working days.
• In only 43% of the cases the European Commission provided names
  of organisations and individuals that were represented in Expert Groups.

Membership of the Expert Groups:

• Over 25% of the Expert Groups surveyed appear to be controlled by corporate interests: more than half of all their members (including governments) are industry representatives.
• In 64% of the Expert Groups studied, business interests appear to be over-represented: industry representatives make up more than 50% of the non-Commission and non-government members.
• Only 32% of the Expert Groups sampled appear to have a more balanced allocation of stakeholders.
• One Expert Group (4%) was unbalanced in favour of NGOs.

The report was based on a survey of 44 (out of more than 1200) Expert Groups that were chosen from a number of key policy areas that are particularly important both to the EU’s legislative role and the need for the wider public interest to be reflected in policy-making: environment, energy, agriculture, consumers, health, water and biotechnology.

The Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Regulation in the European Union, www.alter-eu.org

Alter-EU: What about the european lobbyists?

All are actively engaged in the EU decision-making process. Who are they? On whose behalf are they lobbying? At what price?It is now three years since the European Commission embarked on its transparency initiative. With the imminent launch of a lobbying transparency register and a code of conduct, it is crunch- time for EU lobbying transparency. Or should be.But the latest news on the register being developed by the Commission secretariat is far from reassuring. It may eventually not even contain lobbyists’ names, and only very general and limited information on how much money is spent trying to influence EU decisions.... (See more)

ALTER-EU rings alarm bell over Commission backtracking on lobbying transparency

Brussels, 13 February 2008 – Today, the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Regulation (ALTER-EU) has sent a letter to Commission President Barroso, expressing grave concerns over the development of an EU lobbying transparency register which is to be launched by the Commission this spring. In the letter, ALTER-EU warns that it will reconsider support for the European Transparency Initiative if the Commission would indeed backtrack from key promises it has made in the context of the European Transparency Initiative.... More on: Alliance for Lobbying Transparency & Ethics Regulation

WSJ reports on the Lobby War Boeing v. EADS and Northrop Grumman

Boeing to Protest Air-Force Tanker Award

By AUGUST COLE and J. LYNN LUNSFORDMarch 11, 2008; Page A3
Boeing Co. said it plans to protest the Air Force's decision to award a $40 billion contract for aerial refueling tankers to a team comprising Northrop Grumman Corp. and the parent company of rival Airbus.

The move sets up a protracted political fight over the use of foreign contractors for U.S. military jobs.

• Protest Planned: Boeing plans to file a protest over a $40 billion U.S. Air Force tanker contract won by Northrop Grumman Corp. and Airbus parent European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co.
• The Debate: The contract award has set off contentious debate over whether U.S. jobs will be sacrificed. Boeing said its team "found serious flaws" in the process.
• Biding Time: The Government Accountability Office has 100 days to review the protest, which could lead to a rebid.
Boeing said it will file a formal protest today for the first time this decade, asking the Government Accountability Office to review the Air Force's decision to give the contract to Northrop and European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. (See related article.)
"Our team has taken a very close look at the tanker decision and found serious flaws in the process that we believe warrant appeal," said Boeing Chairman and Chief Executive Jim McNerney in a statement. "This is an extraordinary step rarely taken by our company and one we take very seriously."
The decision to go with a European-designed Airbus A330 jet, rather than Boeing's 767 model, has set off a contentious debate over whether U.S. jobs will be sacrificed as a result. Boeing's supporters in Congress have gone on the attack against the Air Force decision.
Some Boeing backers have even suggested that the situation could hurt Republican presidential candidate John McCain, whose investigation of a previous tanker deal scuttled a contract award to Boeing and forced rebidding of the contract.
At the same time, the protest is a risky move for Boeing because it could delay delivery of tankers that an important customer -- the Air Force -- says it badly needs. Tankers are vital to the Air Force's ability to move materiel and troops during wartime, and for refueling warplanes striking targets far from home. The tanker program is the No. 1 weapons-buying priority for the service, officials have said.
The Government Accountability Office takes as long as 100 days to review the objections under a company's protest and issue a report. The GAO's findings have sometimes resulted in rebids. That was the case in a $10 billion Air Force search-and-rescue helicopter contract that was twice protested by Lockheed Martin Corp. and United Technologies Corp., parent of Sikorsky, after Boeing won it in 2006. A winner is expected this fall.
Boeing said it spent three days reviewing the Air Force's decision following a briefing it received from military officials Friday. Boeing said a "rigorous analysis" led it to conclude that a protest was warranted. "Based upon what we have seen, we continue to believe we submitted the most-capable, lowest-risk, lowest most-probable-life-cycle cost airplane as measured against the Air Force's request for proposal," Mr. McNerney said.
Northrop said in a statement late yesterday that the competition was the "most rigorous, fair and transparent acquisition process in Defense Department history" and that it wouldn't comment further until it learned more details about Boeing's planned protest.
The Air Force also declined to comment before seeing the official paperwork. Earlier in the day, an Air Force spokeswoman said the contract process was "fair and transparent."
Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that while the tanker contract was "not going to be the first contract I've seen protested," he is concerned about the potential delay in getting the planes into service. "I would hope that we could get through this as rapidly as possible," he said. "I need those tankers. That's a real military capability that I've got to have."
Boeing declined last night to provide specific details about its planned protest. However, it hinted at some of its concerns yesterday afternoon in an update it released prior to the decision to pursue an appeal.
Northrop Grumman via Associated Press
The first KC-45A aerial refueling tanker taking off.
Citing its Friday briefing with the Air Force, Boeing said it believes it fared well under the Air Force's five main criteria to evaluate bids. For example, Boeing said it received a top rating for its aircraft's "mission capability," the No. 1 factor, and said it scored very similarly in other areas to the Northrop offering. The company said subjective assessments and changes to an important analytical model contributed to the loss.
"We have serious concerns over inconsistency in requirements, cost factors and treatment of our commercial data," said Mark McGraw, the head of Boeing's tanker effort, in the statement.
In particular, Boeing said the Air Force had sought in-depth cost information on the company's modified 767 tanker offering, which is the product of work by the company's commercial and military divisions. This posed a challenge as the level of detail needed for the government's cost analysis was more than what the commercial side could offer. Boeing said the Air Force was satisfied with the data, though they were less extensive than the government expects under military contracting.
Boeing also said the Air Force made changes in its model that allowed a bigger plane to stay in the competition.
Northrop, based in Los Angeles, countered that its offering won because of its cost, past performance on other contracts, the airplane's capabilities beyond refueling and how the plane fared using a complex model assessing the plane's performance on military missions. The debriefing was "rigorous and deliberative," Northrop said. Air Force officials walked Northrop executives through their proposal yesterday to explain why it won.
Sen. Patty Murray (D., Wash.) applauded Boeing's decision, saying: "The Air Force's shortsighted decision to place the future of America's aerospace industry and national security in the hands of an illegally subsidized foreign competitor is simply wrong for America."
Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, whose state will have the first Airbus assembly facility in the U.S., said lawmakers should hold back from interfering in the process now. "Though I am sure there will be a great deal of rhetoric following Boeing's official protest, I firmly believe that we should follow standard contracting protocol and keep the Congress out of the procurement business," he said.
The Air Force's attempt to run an unusually transparent contracting process for the tanker was in part a result of a $23 billion contract in 2003 to lease at least 100 Boeing tankers. That lease deal failed after illegal job negotiations surfaced between an Air Force acquisitions official who oversaw Boeing contracts and a senior Boeing executive. The official, Darleen Druyun, and Boeing's former chief financial officer, Michael Sears, served time in federal prison.
--Yochi Dreazen contributed to this article.
Write to August Cole at august.cole@dowjones.com and J. Lynn Lunsford at lynn.lunsford@wsj.com

European Lobby Awards

Do not miss the European Lobby Awards

Politico.com: Poor baby Boeing is being punished by bad Uncle Sam

Boeing, Uncle Sam´s favorite corporate nephew, is crying loud because she lost a 40 billion dollar candy. It was taken by the european EADS. She thinks it is not fair that the mean Air Force nullify her contract just because they caught her giving jobs to Air Force officials that were in charge of the contract process. Poor Boeing.


Check out this article from Politico.com to see how the bad Air Force treats the good baby Boeing and gives away her candy to those europeans liberals that pretend to be against the war but would lick the floor of the Pentagon for a bit of Boeing´s candy. Bad europeans! The article: Planes, pain and lobbying deals

www.politico.com