OFFICIAL REVIEW OF THE EU TRANSPARENCY REGISTER

The EU Transparency Register is designed as a “one stop shop” for interest representatives seeking to influence EU policy-making. It currently lists around 5 700 organisations based mainly in Brussels. They range across a wide variety of categories, from consultancies and law firms to NGOs and academic organisations, think tanks and religious entities. The register is run by the joint (EP/Commission) Transparency Register Secretariat (JTRS), which is subordinate to the Secretaries-General of both institutions. It is responsible for the technical operation of the register, and for improving the quality and accuracy of its content. This is done through establishing guidelines for registrants, random checking and automated annual updates for all registrants as well as handling complaints and alerts received. Complaints and alerts relating to registrants can be filed by any individual. While complaints require proof of misconduct equivalent to a breach of the code of conduct, alerts tend to be informal. The Secretariat is also responsible for raising awareness of the activities of the register.

As of 2nd June 2013, the EU Transparency Register includes :

1. Professional consultants/law firms/self employed consultants: 488 (14% of total)
2. In-house lobbyists/trade and professional association: 2815 (50% of total)
3. Think tanks/research institutes : 402  (7%) of total)
4. NGOs: 1487 (26% of total)
5. Organizations representing local, regional, municipal authorities: 278 (5%) of total)
6. Religious organizations: 38  (1% of total)

EPACA, which represents public affairs consultancies, has called for more regulation and a more level playing field for organizations involved. EPACA also wants to see the institutions enforce the system better. In particular, it questions whether Commisioners and MEPs should be speaking at events organized by non-registered entities. More generally, they would like to see clear value for those professionals who sign up to the register, giving transparent actors a more privileged role in the policy-making process.

ALTER-EU, a coalition of NGOs, which campaigns for greater transparency in EU policy-making, has identified several flaws in the current register. In particular it points to the absence of  more than 100 large companies involved in Brussels lobbying,  the absence of large law firms offering lobbying services and the fact that some firms have abandoned registration when challenged to follow rules about disclosing lobbying clients, the fact that a significant share of lobby consultancies, industry groups, MEP-industry forums, think tanks and NGOs remain unregistered. It also points to incomplete and inaccurate information, inadequate auditing and monitoring as well as an insufficient code of conduct.

Transparency International, ALTER EU and EPACA all call for a mandatory system to be set up.

From AALEP’s point of view the EU lobbying landscape does not just include 'lobbyists'/ interest representatives as they are referred to by the Commission/European Parliament i.e. parties paid to have a direct personal communication with government officials with the objective to influence policies and decision-making processes. The reality is that today the public policy advocacy process has become much more sophisticated and often involves large teams of individuals and organizations with various specialties that are not subject to regulatory and transparency requirements. The EU Transparency Register fails to capture substantial money and work undertaken in areas that are increasingly critical to run effective lobbying campaigns. This is the case for example of Communication and Media Experts, Political Strategists, Coalition Coordinators, Grassroots Organizers etc.. All these parties are paid advocates seeking to influence governmental actions on behalf of their clients. They work in conjunction with those making traditional direct personal contacts to influence official's positions. As paid advocates they should be recognized and treated as such and, at a minimum, should be subject to comparable transparency requirements as are 'lobbyists'/interest representatives. If one is directing strategy or even telling lobbyists who to contact, that is a form of lobbying. There is a need to provide further clarity as to who is lobbying, how they are lobbying and how much one is truly spending on the overall effort.

A mandatory register won’t change the fact that many people simply by changing their job duties i.e.  working as policy advisors, consultants and in other "non-lobbyist" positions will be able to escape registration. This will create a ‘shadow lobbying’ activity leading people in and out of lobbying to suggest that those consequences act as a deterrent to transparency.

There is currently no threshold in the EU Transparency for who is and isn’t a lobbyist/interest representative either in terms of compensation received per month or annually or percentage of time spent to influence lawmakers. Perhaps the EU threshold could focus on how much contact individuals are making with lawmakers and their staff, and not counting euros.