|
Brussels feels the pressure |
|
|
|
Public Affairs News , April 2007
Jose LalIoum, the incoming chairman of EPACA, and John Houston, outgoing
founding chairman, discuss the challenges facing the public affairs
sector in Brussels
EPACA was created two years ago as a trade association for the PA
consultancies working with the EU institutions. What are the challenges
the industry faces?
JH: The PA profession is facing a new environment. Fortunately, EPACA
covers more than 79 per cent of the PA consultancy professionals in
Brussels and has a code of conduct that works. This puts us in a strong
position to address the issues. EPACA has a self-regulatory function.
But a key requirement for successful selfregulation is close
co-operation with the relevant public authorities - and that is still a
work in progress. Those with axes to grind see our profession as
vulnerable to attack, so we have to be organised to ensure that the fact
that standards in our profession are generally good is properly
publicised.
Jose, what are your main challenges for the next two years as EPACA
chairman?
JL: EPACA's main challenge is to insist on a responsible and positive
approach, in the face of players who may consider PA practitioners to be
soft targets for generating media attention.
Do you think the role of the PA consultant is sufficiently understood by
your target audiences, including the institutions?
JL: Institutions have a very good understanding of our role. It is
ironic that we are sometimes considered an easy scapegoat to deflect
attacks directed at the institutions: this is exactly the way member
states have treated the European institutions, or 'Brussels', in the
recent past - something that contributed to the French and Dutch 'No'
votes on the constitution. To avoid similar failure for our profession,
we need to better communicate our role to the general public.
What will you do to ensure that the PA community is as open as possible?
JH: Our code imposes clear requirements of transparency on our members
concerning the interests they represent. That sort of day-to-day
transparency and benchmarking is very important - transparency is about
behaviour, not box-ticking.
JL: Charges directed solely at PA professionals acting on behalf of
industry do not accurately reflect the situation. For a start, lobbyists
include a raft of NGOs acting as self-appointed guardians of the public
interest, whose activities are just as likely to conceal hidden agendas.
In addition, the vast majority of lobbyists (whether NGOs or PA
professionals) are acting in good faith. As with all professions, the
array of PA practitioners acting on behalf of companies or NGOs may
include a small number of irresponsible individuals. My company has
recently conducted research into the importance of reputation for PA
consultancies. It backed up a view that forms the basis of EPACA's
outlook - namely, that consultancies involved in nefarious activities do
not survive.
What is your reaction to the Commission's European Transparency
Initiative?
JL: EPACA views this as a positive development - provided it produces a
workable and effective standard, applied equally across all interest
groups. Unfortunately, the recent text issued by the Commission contains
discrepancies between the requirements for consultancies and those for
other lobbyists. This is particularly the case for the rules regarding
commercially sensitive financial information. The Commission should ask
itself the question: 'What problem are we trying to address?'. And I
believe the main problem of the Commission is that the EU citizen is not
aware of the importance of the work done in Brussels. Exposing lobbyists
to voyeurism will not help to explain how Brussels is important to EU
citizens.
JH: The ETI could diminish transparency if the deficiencies of the
recent Commission paper are not corrected. Discriminatory arrangements
both within the professional services sector and between it and others
carrying out the same function are not conducive to an informed public
debate.
As presented, the proposals regarding lobbying disclosure are lacking in
any effective or enforceable system, and are likely only to contribute
to a dispute about what should be disclosed and about the accuracy of
what is being disclosed. A good opportunity to move forward has been
missed.
Is US and European PA becoming more alike?
JH: Not really. Brussels continues to remain a village, and
high-pressure techniques tend to backfire. The successful techniques are
tried and tested (adapted, of course, to technological progress). I
believe some present legal textual advocacy as a kind of new technique
imported from the US, but it is more traditionally a European technique.
JL: The systems will continue to diverge for as long as the funding of
political parties differs. There is no such thing as political party
financing at the moment at EU level. This difference is also illustrated
by the fact that there have been no scandal, or misconduct involving
lobbyists at EU level.
Critics of the recent reform of US lobbying activities suggest that the
reforms effectively allow gift-giving and funding to continue as before.
While this may change, campaign funding is so ingrained in the US
political system that control of lobbying is unlikely to become as
strict as that at the EU-level in the foreseeable future.
At the same time, EU institutions will continue to impose transparency
requirements on EU lobbyists. If anything, the discrepancy between EU
and US public affairs is likely to grow. |
Events Calendar