REVISITING THE 12 TIPS FOR THE WOULD-BE EUROPEAN LOBBYIST

Originally published by the Director of the European Citizen Action Service (ECAS)- Mr. Tony Venables- in 2007 and revised in 2008, the following tips set out twelve guidelines for lobbyists to follow in order to be effective at EU level. They were primarily articulated with civil society organizations (CSOs), NGOs, European associations in mind. The original text has been somewhat edited.  

Preamble

If the space for advocacy is larger, it is not necessarily the case that it is more effective because more and more time is taken up with coalition-building, side shows and the wider context of your particular focus. Tips for effective lobbying now tend to include the need to go beyond pursuing just the narrow objective – you have to be prepared to participate in the thinking process and the debates on cross-sectoral issues. You need to be very conscious of the institutional issues and the differences of view across different Commission Department and Parliamentary Committees and Government Departments/Ministries. In a Union of 28 Member States, determined advocacy can work, but it may well be unexpectedly blown off course. Thinking strategically, including having fall-back plans becomes more important. Case studies by academics tend to show that where advocacy succeeds, an organisation or a group have dedicated one or more persons and financial resources specifically for that task to follow all stages in decision-making and all related events. This means that having a say in European affairs is in reality much harder for smaller organisations. The would-be European lobbyist has to weigh up carefully the pros and cons of embarking on this process. The balance sheet can differ markedly from one case to the next, but the stronger the legal competence of the EU, the more likely it is to be positive.

1. Find the resources to lobby effectively

NGOs often assume that industries having recourse to consultants and expense accounts have limitless resources for lobbying. This is not true except if their markets are likely to be affected either positively or negatively by a particular regulatory standard. It is difficult for more scattered interests only partially or indirectly affected or people campaigning for a more general interest to match the financial power of the private vested interest at stake. Industry lobbies often complain, conversely, that NGOs have an unfair advantage through grants or subsidies, but this is not true either. Grants are more and more for programmed activities and not a blank cheque for lobbying. For all lobbies resources are a problem especially with pressure from within the EU decision-making process to get in early and stay the course.

Funding for advocacy is the exception rather the rule. Most funders prefer to fund service delivery or awareness raising activities, so that resources for lobbying may be part of a larger project or come from special parts of the budgets. The most obvious source are members’ contributions or special campaigns for which public appeals are made. Another possibility is to approach the Trusts or Foundations which have chosen to fund causes, campaigns or advocacy, but these are in a minority. It may be possible also to argue for a change in approach on the part of foundations and other funders. But in turn this requires as professional an approach to advocacy as to project management, which is in any case desirable.

2. Develop a game plan

It is essential to develop a game plan because a compromise has to be found between the need to cover all stages of the decision-making process and the resources available. Sharing costs through coalition building could help achieve this balance. This game plan should begin with a critical assessment of what is desirable compared to what is achievable, and the margin for manoeuvre. This discipline is also necessary to counteract the tendency to concentrate contacts on decision-makers and legislators who are trusted allies and likely to support your cause rather than approach those undecided or hostile to your position.

It is a good idea to produce a checklist of what to do at each stage of the decision-making process and whom to contact when. Well before the Commission makes a formal proposal, a reasonable assessment can be made on the basis of precedent of the likely position of Member States and the chances of a favourable majority. There is also generally an indication in Commission and Council Presidency programmes of a timetable for the adoption by the Commission, the opinion of the Parliament and the Council’s deliberations. The unpredictable nature of EU decision-making has also been stressed. The game plan should be reviewed and adjusted at each stage. One of the biggest obstacles to success which needs careful consideration is that the position of the European association and its members may well be much stronger in the Member States which are in any case favourable to the EU initiative. Raising the issue in Member States which are more sceptical or where it is simply not on the political agenda depends on the ability to generate additional support at national level.

Campaigners often fail to see that at some stage a compromise which is the best that can be achieved, has to be supported even if it falls short of their original objective.

3. Adjust your strategy to what can be achieved realistically through the EU

It is crucial to be very conscious of the issues around, “competencies of the EU”, and “legal basis” and adjust your strategy accordingly. It is not easy for NGOs to understand why the EU focuses more time on toy safety, than highlighting child poverty in the Union or is competent to deal with some diseases and not others. Competence is strongest where it has been expanded from the economic foundations and the internal market to areas such as consumer and environmental protection, free movement of persons and non-discrimination in general often as a result of decisions by the European Court of Justice or interpretation of the original Treaty articles to meet more modern societal concerns.

Where the EU has been less successful is the adding on of entirely new policy areas, such as culture or public health or aspects of social policy, where Treaty articles are often weak and preclude legislation. Depending on their area of activity, NGOs often face the difficulty that their message can only with great difficulty be translated into action by the EU, and is therefore received frequently with incomprehension by officials. They therefore have to adjust their strategy and argue links for example to the internal market and free movement of persons, and demonstrate how their demands can be implemented. Such tests are less stringent for non legislative action. Many EU projects, and reform programmes in accession or neighbouring countries often address a far wider range of internal policies of the State than could be in the competence of the EU as a legislator (i.e. human rights, policing or the independence of the judiciary). Strategy should, however, as a general rule, follow the advice that the narrower objective for the EU is likely to work better than the broader, all-embracing one.

4. Find a good lobbyist

It is not easy to find a good lobbyist, because someone who on paper has all the right qualifications may well find it bewildering and not necessarily an added adrenalin rush, to work in the unstructured European lobbying environment. It is also possible that you can be a good lobbyist in theory and do all the right things but get nowhere. Maybe the strategy was wrong in the first place? Maybe the person on the front line has more of an ability to go unnoticed than to make an impression? A good lobbyist is results driven. There are some qualities to spot: a good lobbyist is determined, flexible and an extrovert. He or she combines broad, theoretical knowledge of the inner workings of the EU with mastery of the brief and a sound understanding of the technical evidence and legal aspects. Often EU decision-makers can spot the difference between just the public relations approach and someone who has a grasp of both the scope and limits in the Institutions for changing draft legislation and what is happening in the market place and society.

A good lobbyist has to have advocacy skills in both formal and less formal settings. This means briefing and de-briefing and organising the delegation, so that presentations and follow-ups are well structured. It also means having the ability to get the message across less formal settings. It can be important to seize a chance to hand over a paper when you meet one of the decision makers by chance in a lift or corridor of the Parliament. Lobbyists are non-hierarchical networkers. Sometimes it is just as important to be in touch with the technical staff or the Assistant of an MEP as with a leading politician.

The good lobbyist has to have the persistence to get in early and stay the course, but also persistence tempered with good manners and a helpful attitude. For example, it is not a good idea to interrupt other people’s conversations, go to an office without fixing an appointment, or try to stop a Member of the European Parliament on their way to voting in the plenary session.

Good drafting skills are just as important as such person-to-person advocacy skills. The ability to adapt the message at each stage of the decision-making process, to different institutional concerns, and to translate the general message into a proposal for a specific amendment which fits the process, is essential. Key messages cannot just be repeated over and over again, but must be constantly re-worded, and targeted to the absorption capacity and interests of different audiences. At the same time, the good European lobbyist has to keep the wider network at national level properly informed and at each key stage prepared for the next. It is important to keep the network motivated and well-informed, but without tying them up in too much red tape and more amendments than they have time for.

Why insist on the qualifications for the good lobbyist? It is because case studies suggest that where organisations find the resources to make someone responsible for lobbying at all stages at the decision-making process the campaign is more likely to succeed.

5. Create a European association or network to operate in relation to the EU Institutions and across the Union

With the expansion of the numbers of lobbyists and requests to be heard, European associations as opposed to scattered national and regional interests have become once more the privileged interlocutors of the EU Institutions. With increasing competition for attention, there are signs that Commission officials and MEPs are having to be more selective about their open door policy, and give preference to those they know and trust and where possible to delegations aggregating points of view across several member states. In any case, in a Union of 28 Member States, an effective lobby cannot be confined to having an office in Brussels to represent the members towards the EU Institutions, important though this remains. European-level advocacy has to be backed up by active national representations in at least two-thirds of the Member States. The organisations in the country planning or holding the Presidency of the Council have a special responsibility to further the interests of the group as a whole. Often MEPs or officials will say that they have seen the evidence of lobbying by an NGO in their own country but are told by colleagues from other countries that there is no such evidence there. It is therefore vital to campaign not just in the countries which are supportive, but also in those which are against or indifferent, which is not easy because it is no accident that NGOs tend to be strongest in those Member States which are the most advanced. The European association has to be sufficiently strong and disciplined to convey the same message at the same time through its national members to their governments at key stages of the decision-making process. In any lobbying strategy, some calculations have to be made about how many Member States are needed to form a blocking minority, and/or how many to form a majority in a final vote. But such a strategy has to be backed up by the European association’s members trying to persuade a few or more Member States to vote differently.

6. Participate in the consultative process

It is important for at least the European association or network to which you belong to participate in official consultation processes launched by the Commission through “Your Voice in Europe”. Their significance varies. Consultation may be a quick, rather formalistic process, from which the European Commission expects to hear little new because it has already decided its approach in advance. Nevertheless, it is important to participate because that is the first question the desk officer will ask the visiting delegation. If you did not notice the consultation process, it may count against you. But, what can be gained? Sometimes consultation processes on more political issues are important. For example, the Commission may ask for opinions on the future of the EU budget and expenditure priorities and may have a relatively open mind on the options. A significant response, both in qualitative and quantitative terms from NGOs would be desirable, if only because on such issues there will be significant input from Member States, regions, industry federations, and think tanks. It is equally important to participate in hearings in the European Parliament or consultations organised by national governments or parliaments. But, it is very important not to regard consultation as the end of the story. The resources available to the Commission to follow up consultations and incorporate its results in proposals are often insufficient, so that this is a quickly forgotten stage in the decision-making process.

7. Support lobbying by evidence across the Union

The provision of objective, reliable and well-researched evidence from across the Union is the key to successful lobbying and it will distinguish your lobby from others who just provide wish lists. EU legislators are relatively open-minded and can be persuaded by arguments, well supported by the facts. They tend to be less impressed than a national legislator might be by your position as an organisation. The tendency for position papers to be rhetorical, procedural and abstract means that those representing real case histories, facts and figures are read with more interest. They are also more likely to be picked up by the press.  This means using evidence which will explain the likely impact of particular measures: opinion polls or more qualitative ways of assessing citizens’ views, through European comparative tests and surveys (i.e. measuring the carbon foot-print, child poverty, trafficking in persons, the increase in allergies etc).

The question arises here of whether the European associations, essential to a successful lobbying activity, should not also be the coordinating instrument for gathering the comparable evidence from across the Union to back up the campaign. NGOs make a distinction between their service delivery operations and their advocacy functions: for effective European lobbying, the two should come together. For example, the Commission itself recognises that NGOs need more access to scientific research to support their advocacy role and has introduced a “civil society instrument” to the EU framework programme for research and development. Alliances between NGOs and academics can be effective in such circumstances.

European surveys can be useful back home too for the members of the European associations, revealing to the government where their performance is above average and where they are behind their European neighbours. European projects should be planned to link with the policymaking and legislative process.

8. Get in early and stay in

Despite the possibilities of following the EU at a distance on the internet and by email, it goes together with the idea that you still have to be on the spot or represented in Brussels to lobby the EU effectively. Don’t be fooled: by the time an initiative is announced and a consultation procedure launched on the Europa website, it is already a bit late and the Commission will have a good idea of the scope and limits of the proposed policy or legislation. A policy of flying in and flying out of Brussels does not work either because there is little advance warning of what is on the agenda for meetings of experts or parliamentary committees with items often shifted at the last minute. The advantage of getting in early is that at the start of the process very few people, other departments, committees or outside interests are involved.

However, as the issue progresses within the Institutions more people do progressively become involved and there is more competition for attention. This is true, not only of the European Commission, but also of the other Institutions. It is important not only to get in early, but also to stay in otherwise it is assumed you have lost interest and your arguments may be forgotten. As already pointed out, this is not always possible, if only because of constraints on resources.

The difficulty in addition is that parts of the decision-making process when the main protagonists meet informally to prepare compromise texts or during the conciliation procedure between the Council and the European Parliament are opaque and unpredictable. The heavy co-decision procedure has put pressure on the three Institutions to strike a “deal” on the “package” before the first reading in the parliament. This is a good idea to gain time but often at the expense of transparency. So if you cannot follow all the stages in the decision-making process, you may well need to think hard in order not to waste opportunities.

9. Make more use of EU complaints procedures to back-up your cause

Some European association representatives in regular contact with the Institutions may argue that official channels of complaint should be avoided and that it would be better for good cooperation to make informal requests. This may well be the case, and one should at least inform your regular interlocutors of what you are doing rather then going behind their backs. On the other hand, possibilities under the regulation on access to documents are underused by citizens and civil society. The same applies to requests to the European ombudsman to ascertain maladministration by the Institutions or petitions to the European Parliament. Complaints to the Commission or action before national courts are also rare for NGOs. These non-judicial, quasi-judicial or judicial remedies are slow and cumbersome. For example, it takes 1 year for the European ombudsman to finalise a response to a complaint. On the other hand, an organisation prepared to consider using these procedures will often earn respect and support if the case is well founded. The formal procedure can provide backing by making your arguments better known to the Institutions. They become accountable under an obligation to reply and explain their position. The EU is very much a legal construction. These rules are there for citizens and not just Member States or EU Institutions.

10. Form alliances, build coalitions

With increasing competition for attention, and also to provide a counterweight to more powerful lobbies, it makes sense to cooperate with others and form coalitions. On issues of general policy which cut across different sectors – i.e. the debate on the future of the EU budget, Treaty reforms, EU policies on communication with citizens, it is in the nature of the subject that coalitions would be desirable. They are not always easy to establish because organisations with a very different legal status may be involved: NGOs, think tanks, communication specialists. On other cross-cutting questions such as climate change, migration policy, EU cohesion or neighbourhood policy, networking and coalition building are essential. Often it is a question of a coalition across a single sector when the EU is considering for example a new social action, public health or a cultural programme. Among NGOs, the European level coalition building mechanisms exist in the broad sectoral groupings making up the civil society contact group.

It may well be prudent to consider coalitions as flexible and temporary. They may work to reinforce shared general concerns – but not so well to support a technical detail of specific concern only to some members of the group. There has to be a clear understanding that it is sometimes better to work together, particularly at high points for the joint campaign, sometimes separately. Coalitions may be cumbersome, but they can be more than the sum of their respective strengths (i.e. some organisations have technical know-how, whilst others have better links to the Institutions and a third group a good data base and communication skills). Members of the European Parliament, and in particular the Rapporteur will often prefer to see groups working together and reaching compromises, rather than being asked to arbitrate between often similar demands. It is a good idea to keep an eye on opposing coalitions and lobbies: if they are being particularly active and forming coalitions, you should probably do so too!

It is also worth keeping up with the following lobbyists/coalitions- The Association of Accredited Public Policy Advocates to the European Union (www.aalep.eu) and the European Public Affairs Consultancies’Association (www.epaca.org).

11. Make a noise to be seen and heard

The factors already mentioned of increased competition for attention from the EU Institutions coupled with the latter’s increasingly overcrowded agenda means that it is more and more important to attract media and public attention. Commissioners, MEPs or Government Ministers are more likely to be reading their newspaper or a media brief than all the letters and position papers they have received. In turn, there is increased competition from other groups and events, also looking for attention. This means that something more than just standard public relations is required. Press briefings, fringe meetings with MEPs, visual gimmicks, exhibitions in the European Parliament buildings, or advertising messages are so frequent they will go unnoticed unless their message is original and catches attention.

A more research-based approach also works. What can interest the press and also support advocacy is reliable evidence collated across the Union. This allows journalists to paint a European picture, but also to pick out for their audience statistics relevant to their country and its place in the league table. Innovative techniques such as citizens’ panels or deliberative polls will attract press attention, because they relate the European Union to the everyday lives of citizens through the testimony of citizens themselves.

The press corps accredited to the EU is very much centred in its activity like foreign or political correspondents on the work of the Institutions and ministerial meetings. Therefore they would have to sell your story to their editor as having some real additional value – a new angle on an EU activity. Access to the media for NGOs is easier than for commercial interests, and they should maximise this advantage. European and national officials or MEPs will tend to read briefings coming from groups which have been mentioned in the press rather than ones which appear purely anonymous.

12. Evaluate your lobbying activities

Finally, there is increasing emphasis as the lobbying agenda becomes more unpredictable and crowded, on having a clear strategy and building evaluation in from the outset. In some cases, the results of lobbying can be tangible because without it a particular amendment would not have been presented and adopted. But, these are rarely measured. For example, studies by academics report claims about how successful lobbying was in promoting changes to legislation, but they are often rightly sceptical. Maybe the strategy was unrealistic in the first place, or badly implemented so that lessons could be learned about how to do it differently next time. Also funders and the governing body of the European associations would like to know what succeeded, and what did not.

The evaluation tools should not however be only focused on measurable results. There are intangible benefits from working together in a European lobby: it can help build cohesion within the group across Europe, and be a real support for smaller organizations; the profile of the group may have improved through media coverage; a number of useful contacts would have been made; “Brussels” is sometimes more of an “ideas factory” than a decision-making centre and engagement with the EU can build knowledge within organizations and help spread best practices.