JÁVORT Az EU-BA!

Támogasd Te is küzdelmünket a zöld és igazságos jövőért!

Corporate Europe Observatory report on Council lobbying

Today, a new report from Corporate Europe Observatory: “Captured states: when EU governments are a channel for corporate interests” reveals that the complex and opaque nature of decisions made in the Council of Ministers often benefits corporate interests over those of citizens.

The report comes nearly a week after the European Parliament voted to improve its own transparency standards around lobbying. Since November 2014, the European Commission has displayed information about the lobby meetings of Commissioners and high level officials on the Transparency Register. The Greens/EFA group are calling for similar rules to be adopted by the permanent representations of national governments to the EU and for more transparency around Council meetings.

Benedek Jávor, transparency spokesperson for the Greens/EFA group in the European Parliament comments:

“Today’s report from Corporate Europe Observatory shows that decisions between EU governments may be made under the influence of lobbyists and not in the interest of people. Too often the EU gets a bad rap for decisions being made behind closed doors with lobbyists holding too much sway over what is decided in Brussels. However, often what happens in Brussels, doesn’t start in Brussels, it comes from the secretive interactions between big business and national governments. What is in the interest of large corporations is not always in the interest of European citizens, which is why we need transparency around the lobbying of EU governments, both in Brussels and in the national capitals.”

More:
Read The report by Corporate Europe Observatory

MEPs vote for new rules on lobbying in major victory for transparency

The European Parliament has just voted for binding rules for more transparency around MEPs’ meetings with lobbyists and seized the opportunity to the amended Rules of Procedure through the “Corbett Report”. The report calls for stricter rules around rapporteurs and other MEPs in other official positions to disclose their meetings with interest representatives on the Transparency Register. Benedek Jávor and the Greens/EFA group has been calling for these actions for years. Mr. Jávor believes that all lobby meetings are need to be published in a searchable database to ensure the transparency and the integrity of the legislative procedures.  He has been disclosing his lobby meetings on his website, which is available here.

The Parliament also voted in favour of stricter use of MEPs’ General Expenditure Allowance (GEA). Mr. Jávor is publishing regularly his expenditures which you can see here.

In an extremely unusual steps the Hungarian Fidesz MEP Mr. József Szájer of EPP group had pushed through a secret ballot on the new transparency rules. They tried to hide their opinion, but an overwhelming majority of MEPs 380 votes in favour of more transparency.

transparency

LuxLeaks upcoming court decision – quote from Benedek Jávor

Tomorrow (Thursday 23 November), the High Court in Luxembourg will rule on the appeal of the LuxLeaks whisteblowers, Antoine Deltour and Raphael Halet, plus journalist Edouard Perrin.

In March, Antoine Deltour was sentenced to a six-month suspended sentence and a €1,500 fine, while Raphael Halet received a €1,000 fine. They have appealed these sentences.

Journalist Edouard Perrin was originally acquitted, but the Luxembourgish authorities have appealed against this decision.

Greens/EFA transparency spokesperson Benedek Jávor comments:

“This trial shows why we need protection for whistleblowers. It is thanks to people like Antoine Deltour and Raphael Halet that the public was made aware of the many tax and fraud scandals to break in recent years. Their principled and brave action has been a major factor in bringing about much needed policy changes to tackle tax fraud, money laundering and corruption. Yet despite this, the EU doesn’t have rules in place to ensure their protection. The European Commission must urgently bring forward robust proposals to make sure that future whistleblowers don’t face the same ordeal.  

 “It is deeply regrettable that the journalist Edouard Perrin is also facing renewed conviction. In light of the murder of Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, we have called for the creation of an annual prize to celebrate investigative journalism, which serves a crucial function in our democracies.”

 

(Image source: euractiv.com – Gwenael Piaser/Flickr)

MEPs Go to Court in Bid to Reform EFSA

Green MEPs have lodged a complaint to denounce the lack of transparency in EFSA’s assessment of glyphosate. They hope to change the internal rules of the agency to boost transparency and limit lobby influence.

“Secret science is bad for your health,” said Michèle Rivasi, a French Green MEP. Together with three of her colleagues, she is campaigning for more transparency within the EU’s scientific agencies.

On 24 May, Heidi Hautala (Finland), Benedek Jávor (Hungary), Michèle Rivasi (France) et Bart Staes (Belgium) lodged a complaint against the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for not releasing the studies upon which it based its assessment of glyphosate.

In 2016, the agency deemed that this controversial pesticide posed no threat to consumers. Just the previous year, however, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) had judged the substance “probably carcinogenic”.

Since then, the European agency has refused to release most of the studies behind its opinion, arguing that they come from the industry and are thus protected as trade secrets.

Scientific controversy

“But without this crucial data, independent experts cannot check the validity of EFSA’s conclusions. This has been underlined by the toxicologist Christopher Portier in his letter to Jean-Claude Juncker”, said Rivasi, who is a biologist.

The shreds of information the Greens did manage to obtain by piecing together redacted data and missing documents are, however, enough for the toxicologist to conclude that the assessment carried out by EFSA did not consider important elements that could prove glyphosate’s carcinogenicity.

“It is essential to modify the internal regulations of the European agencies so they can only use publicly available studies, just as the IARC does,” Rivasi added. “The Monsanto Papers scandal shows us yet again the necessity of putting an end to the interference of the agrochemical industries in public health policies.”

EFSA sitting on the fence

If the agencies could only use publicly available studies for their opinions, the “multinational corporations that hide behind trade secrets” would not have so much influence over legislation, the French MEP explained.

In practice, internal regulations can be changed on the initiative of the commissioner responsible for them. In this case, it would be Vytenis Andriukaitis. “We have already succeeded in having the regulations changed, we will keep up the pressure,” Benedek Jávor insisted.

Yet, the publication of information concerning emissions of chemicals into the environment is supposedly guaranteed by the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, as well as by several past court judgements.

Towards a reformed agriculture

Of course, the agrochemical industry and traditional farmers claim it is impossible to farm without glyphosate. But a number of studies, as well as the proven success of alternative practices, such as organic agriculture, contradict this claim. “They always say it’s impossible, we should not believe it. That’s what they said about asbestos,” said Bart Staes.

“We do not need to find new chemicals, we need to change the way we cultivate,” Jávor added.

Solutions exist, even for the agri-food sector, Rivasi promised. And those solutions do not imply any necessary decrease in yield and production. Furthermore, added Heidi Hautala, they are usually much better for the environment and the soils.

These solutions do not necessarily mean getting rid of all pesticides. Agroecology is a practice by which farmers try and reduce as much as possible the chemicals and external products they use on their crops.

What this does imply is a progressive end to monocultures and artificial practices such as desiccation. The principle of desiccation involves killing the plant (by spraying glyphosate on it, for example) before harvest. The dying plant then sends all its remaining resources into the grain, which looks bigger when harvested.

The executive director of EFSA himself, Bernhard Url, is not opposed to this notion of reforming agricultural practices.

“It is not so much of a safety question because we only authorise products that do not cause harm, but we are entering a discussion about the acceptability of certain practices. Here we can say that maybe if consumers knew, they would make different choices. This is true for organic farming: consumers know that there is a different system available and make a choice”, he said in a recent interview with EURACTIV.com.

This new debate also concerns products such as Smartfresh, a gas that enables the conservation of apples, for example, for months, without their external appearance changing. But according to some research, it seems that the products conserved lose their nutritional value in the process.

Smartfresh is not dangerous, it is safe for human consumption, but are these practices really necessary?

This “is not our primary mandate, which is safety and not efficacy or risk-benefit assessment. But it is a very pertinent question whether in the future more of these risk-benefit questions should come to our table,” Url said.

Medicines agencies work in this way. “Medicines are tested not only for safety but also for efficacy and quality. In food, as there are no authorisations, we are really sticking to the safety mandate.”

LuxLeaks trial: Convictions show the need for urgent EU protection of whistleblowers

The verdict of the LuxLeaks whistleblowers trial has been handed down today. Both Antoine Deltour and Raphael Halet have been convicted, while journalist Edouard Perrin has been acquitted, as he was in the original trial. Antoine Deltour has been sentenced to a six-month suspended sentence and a €1,500 fine, while Raphael Halet has received a €1,000 fine.

Commenting on the decision, Greens/EFA member of the committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs Molly Scott Cato said:

“Even with the reduced sentences, this decision is deeply regrettable. Without the actions of Antoine and Raphael, the secret sweetheart tax deals between large companies and the tax administration of Luxembourg would have remained secret. During our recent visit to Luxembourg with members of the Panama Papers inquiry committee we heard that they have a new policy of transparency on tax matters. It is a shame that they do not extend this policy to cover those who shine a light on the country’s murky history of tax avoidance. Antoine and Raphael have done a great service to those who seek to advance the cause of tax justice in Europe. The significant tax reforms that are now being agreed by the EU institutions would not have happened without their revelations. The LuxLeaks scandal highlights the need for tax rulings to be made public and for companies to be obliged to publicly disclose where they do business. It also draws attention to the urgency of making progress with EU-wide whistleblower protection legislation.”

Greens/EFA transparency spokesperson Benedek Jávor added:

“This verdict shows just how urgently we need a directive offering minimum level of protection for whistleblowers at European level. We have not only been calling for action for a long time but have also published our own draft proposal. We are pleased that the European Commission has launched a consultation, but this must be followed by swift and decisive legislative action. The proposal needs to be horizontal rather than sector specific, so that no whistleblowers again have to experience the type of hounding and criminalisation that Antoine and Raphael have faced.”

Greens/EFA MEPs call on Council of Europe to monitor Romanian government

In response to recent attempts on the part of the Romanian government to decriminalise corruption and weaken the country’s conflicts of interest rules, a group of Greens/EFA MEPs has written to the Council of Europe and the Council of Europe Group of States against Corruption (GRECO).

The letter [available on the Green/EFA website] calls on GRECO to take concrete steps to examine the situation on the ground in Romania, and to ensure that the most recent developments are taken into account during the current compliance report assessment. The MEPs have also requested a meeting with GRECO to discuss the issue further.

Please see below a quote from Greens/EFA transparency spokesperson Benedek Jávor.

“The Council of Europe needs to take action where the European Commission has so far failed to do so. The Commission has already demonstrated weakness in responding to corruption by shelving the EU anti-corruption report originally due to be published last year. Until the Commission is prepared to take its responsibilities more seriously, we call on the Council of Europe to make sure that the deeply concerning recent events in Romania are properly monitored and followed up on where necessary.”

The full list of signatories is: Karima Delli, Pascal Durand, Sven Giegold, Rebecca Harms, Heidi Hautala, Benedek Jávor, Eva Joly, Ulrike Lunacek, Julia Reda, Terry Reintke, Michèle Rivasi, Bronis Ropé, Jordi Solé, Bart Staes, Indrek Tarand, Josep-Maria Terricabras, Claude Turmes, Ernest Urtasun

 

(Image source:  Daniel Mihailescu/AFP via Getty Images)

Comitology – Commission proposal would do little for accountability or public health

The European Commission has today published its long-awaited proposal for the reform of the comitology process, used to approve or renew products, such as GMOs and pesticides (see background below). The proposal comes after a series of “no opinion” conclusions from standing committees, due to a number of member states consistently abstaining.

Commenting on the proposals, Greens/EFA transparency spokesperson Benedek Jávor said:

“While we are pleased that the Commission is finally taking action, the proposals announced today fall far short of what is needed. They are merely tinkering with a system that needs to be completely overhauled. The decision making process must be made more accountable and much more transparent. For this to be achieved, decisions should fall to the governments of the EU member states and the European Parliament.”

Green food safety spokesperson Bart Staes added:

“We have seen time and time again that important decisions on GMOs and pesticides are being taken behind closed doors. Give these decisions, as in the recent case of glyphosate, carry significant health implications, they need to be made more openly. The Commission would clearly like to have greater political backing for the approval of GMOs and pesticides, but these proposals will simply mask the political disputes linked to GMO authorisations in the EU.”

Background

The Commission suggests four targeted amendments:

  1. The qualified majority (55% of Member States representing 65% of population) in the appeal committee will be calculated only on the basis of the number of Member States taking part in the vote (either in favour or against), while abstentions would carry no voting weight at all.
  2. Transparency of the votes in the appeal committee
  3. When no opinion is reached either in Standing Committee or in appeal Committee, there will be the possibility of a second referral to the Appeal Committee where Member States are represented at Ministerial level
  4. Introduction of a right for the Commission to refer the matter to Council for a non-binding opinion/position

ITCO, UNODC and GRECO say to European Commission: Open Up !

Strasbourg, 14 December 2016

Today, representatives from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) of the Council of Europe and the transparency intergroup of the European Parliament (ITCO) appeal on the European Commission to finally start reporting about its anti-corruption policies.

Co-chair of the ITCO-intergroup, Dennis de Jong: ́ We were told by the European Commission that early this year, the European Parliament would receive its second anti-corruption report. In the meantime, all we received was a disappointing letter from Vice-President Timmermans that the report would be submitted in due course and that it would not contain a section on the internal anti-corruption policies of the European institutions themselves. I therefore welcome the idea of asking GRECO to submit its evaluation on anti-corruption policies of the EU and its Member States, so that the Commission can finally make some pro gress in this regard ́.

The appeal also addresses the concerns of UNODC and GRECO. De Jong: ́I t is embarrassing that until now the Commission has refrained from participating in the Implementation Review Mechanism under the UN Convention against Corruption, to which the EU is a party. I praise the patience of UNODC and its offer the assist the Commission in this respect. I urge the Commission to step up its efforts and to set the right example to the international community, instead of lagging behind as it did until now. Similarly, the EP should receive as soon as possible a full legal analysis of the obstacles the Commission is facing in becoming a party to the GRECO-mechanism of the Council of Europe. Also in this regard, sw ift progress has to be made ́.

Appeal on European Commission: Open Up!

  1. We are concerned about the lack of progress made by the European Commission in respect of its reporting activities on anti-corruption policies and measures, not only of Member States, but also of the EU-institutions themselves.
  2. We are disappointed that the second anti-corruption report of the European Commission, originally due for early this year, has not come out yet and we call upon the Commission to provide the European Parliament with a comprehensive report, including measures taken by the EU-institutions themselves, without further delay.
  3. We invite the Commission to examine ways to speed up the preparations for EU-membership of GRECO, the Council of Europe ́s mechanism to monitor compliance of its members (including all EU Member States) with the organisation’s anti-corruption standards. Similarly, we call upon the Commission to speed up the preparations for its participation in the Implementation Review Mechanism of the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC). We understand that there may be legal obstacles to overcome, but we demand transparency in this respect and invite the Commission to publish a legal analysis of the problems and possible solutions.
  4. In the meantime, we invite the Commission to explore, together with GRECO, possibilities for developing a pilot project, in which the EU participates, on a purely voluntary basis, in GRECO ́s review process in order to become acquainted with the procedures.
  5. We note that the Commission stated as one of the reasons for not being able to report on anti-corruption policies and measures that it cannot really critically evaluate its own measures. We therefore invite GRECO to offer support in this respect by providing the Commission with a targeted evaluation.
  6. We recall that in its Resolution of 25 October 2016, the European Parliament called upon the Commission to meet its reporting obligations under the UN Convention against Corruption to which the EU has become a party, and also to do its utmost to contribute financially to the technical assistance programme of the UN in the context of the Convention.
  7. We welcome the offer made by UNODC to assist the Commission with fulfilling its reporting obligations and with participating in the Implementation Review Mechanism of the UNCAC, so that the Commission could make itself acquainted with the monitoring procedures.
  8. The Members of the European Parliament, participating in the Intergroup Integrity, Transparency, Corruption and Organised Crime stand ready to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the European Commission on all of these issues, together with representatives from the Council of Europe and the UNODC.

Joint appeal of the ITCO intergroup and the UNOCD.

Glyphosate – Green MEPs granted limited access to controversial studies

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has today written to a group of Greens/EFA MEPs, confirming that they will be granted limited access to the controversial studies used in their assessment of the safety of herbicide glyphosate. The decision comes after the MEPs (Heidi Hautala, Benedek Javor, Michele Rivasi and Bart Staes) made a request to EFSA for the documents to be made public.

The studies form the basis of EFSA’s assessment that glyphosate is “probably not carcinogenic”, a position that directly contradicts the assessment of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). At present, the studies are only accessible to certain MEPs, and only through a secure “reading room” set up by industry. The documents which will be supplied to the MEPs will be redacted and it will take another two months for any of the information to be sent to them.

Commenting on the news, Green transparency spokesperson Benedek Javor said:

“We will always welcome any effort to move forward on transparency, and this is clearly a positive development. However, until we have access to the documents and are able to submit them to independent expert analysis, it will be too soon to assess just how progressive this offer is.”

Green legal affairs and transparency spokesperson Heidi Hautala added:

“We will now finally have the opportunity to submit this data to independent scientific scrutiny, but what we really want is for the studies to be made fully public. Science rests upon the ability of data and conclusions to be challenged. The on-going controversy around glyphosate, and the continued struggle and delays in getting access to crucial evidence, show just how badly in need of reform the current assessment system is.”

The decision comes in the wake of continual pressure from Greens/EFA MEPs, including a recent action outside the secure reading room set up by industry – see video: http://www.greens-efa.eu/secret-science-is-not-science-16025.html

Transparency register – Progress on lobby transparency but many loopholes remain

Today, Frans Timmermans, Vice-President of the European Commission, presented the proposal for a new Inter-Institutional Agreement between the European Commission, European Parliament and the European Council, relating to the transparency register for lobbyists. Rapporteur for the Transparency Report of the European Parliament (1) and Greens/EFA finance and economic spokesman Sven Giegold commented:

 

“The European Commission’s proposals are an important step towards greater lobby transparency in the European Union. It is right that the European Parliament and the Council presidencies should make their contact with lobbyists transparent. Lobby transparency would make a crucial contribution to strengthening the confidence of citizens in the European Institutions. The conservatives of EPP and liberals of ALDE must drop their resistance in the European Parliament and allow the measures to proceed.

 

“However, the Commission’s proposals stop halfway. Only Commissioners and Director Generals are currently included, while lobbying of other senior staff and heads of units in the EU agencies would remain in the dark. Lobby transparency will remain empty words for the permanent representations of the member states in Brussels, not to speak of the governments in their capitals. Unfortunately, the proposal also lacks a legislative footprint, which would make transparent for any new EU legislation which lobbyists have lobbied which MEPs, Member States and Commission. We need the rules to be extended and a legislative footprint to make the transparency register as comprehensive as possible.”

 

Green transparency spokesperson Benedek Javor added:

 

“The Greens/EFA group has already taken important measures towards greater transparency through our Lobbycal project, free software that makes meetings with lobbyists transparent, including information about the subjects discussed. Many Members of our group use it already and I would encourage others to follow this example. By taking steps towards greater transparency in our work, we can help foster greater trust in politicians at a time when it is at a low. The European Council is of particular concern as it is currently the least transparent of the three institutions: we hope the Member States will step up to the challenge and deliver the transparency and accountability that citizens expect, and deserve.”

 

(1)  The report sets out proposals for greater lobbying transparency and stricter rules on the integrity of Members of the European Parliament. Under pressure from the conservatives in the European Parliament, the vote has been postponed.

 

 

Additional information:

 

The proposal of the European Commission:  http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/1-2016-627-EN-F1-1.PDF

And the corresponding annex: http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/1-2016-627-EN-F1-1-ANNEX-1.PDF

Memo by Commission explaining their proposal: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-3181_en.htm

Sven Giegold’s draft report on transparency, accountability and integrity: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-567.666+01+DOC+WORD+V0//EN&language=EN

Blockade by Conservatives against the voting of the transparency report in Parliament: http://www.sven-giegold.de/2016/conservatives-blocking-lobby-transparency-and-moves-to-sanction-conflicts-of-interest-in-the-european-parliament/