If you want to influence EU public policy, play the long game

I have learned that if you are serious about influencing EU public policy and legislation you need to play for the long game, take opportunities, and learn that support can from unexpected places.

By long game, I think it takes around 10-year commitment to change existing policies and laws. It is a long game that takes deep pockets, a long-term mindset, and focus.

I wanted to share my experience working on fisheries reform in 2007 and highlight the strong influence of the Court of Auditors in influencing key decision makers.

The European Court of Auditors audits Community policies.  Their influence is powerful. Their caustic analysis and damming recommendations can rock the credibility for a Community policy. Their words are taken on board by the Commission. It often kkick-startsthem into reform. When the Court of Auditors publish during a public consultation or review their words have extra clout.

 

Lessons as a Panda

 

I learned the long game back in 2007 when I worked on fisheries for WWF.

We had a strategy to kick start the reform of a failing Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). There were some steep hurdles. The Commission did not think there was a problem and the review only needed to happen in 5 years.

 

 

Key Dates – Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy

• December 2002 – Common Fisheries Policy Regulation (link)
• October 2007 – WWF Mid Term Review of the Common Fisheries Policy (link)
• December 2007 – European Court of Auditors’ Special Report 7/2007 (link)
• July 2011 – European Commission present proposals for reformed CFP (link)
• December 2012 – Review Clause for CFP
• 1 January 2014 – new CFP comes into force

 

The Role of the Court of Auditors

 

The Court of Auditors report was so damming that the Commission started their reform.

The Commission replied:

121. The Commission shares the conclusions of the Court on the shortcomings of the provisions concerning control, inspection and enforcement, which endanger the effectiveness of the Common Fisheries Policy.

In the light of that situation, the Commission already started a reflection in view of an ambitious reform of the European policy for fisheries control.

The recommendations made by the Court with regard to improving the situation, can serve as an effective contribution to the success of this reform.

 

The findings were in line with WWF’s analysis.

Bring the Best Ideas to the Table

Just as with the Regulatory Scrutiny Board, you can’t lobby the Court of Auditors. They are based in the EU compound in Luxembourg. You can’t prompt them to look into an issue.  They seem to have a penchant for intervening when there is considerable public interest or it is being reviewed.

You can influence them, as you can anyone, by bringing first class, clear and original research to the table.

I find the best way to do this is to pay for the best external experts you can afford to answer a series of questions for you. The experts write the report and you write the introduction.

It is smart if you hand the draft report over to the Commission and ask them for any feedback. First, you’ll give the Commission the right to correct any errors of fact. You don’t want to put junk out. If it is junk, you’ll bin it.

If the Commission disagree with a view of events, you’ll likely remove it.  You want to publish a report that influences the debate. You want something that decision makers see as credible, balanced and evidence based. There is more than enough evidence and fact light reports selling policy recommendations going around. You’ll stand out by being credible.

There is a downside to this. The experts you hire to answer the questions you ask – and those questions are likely to be the same any serious official will be asking – may come to a conclusion you don’t agree with. This is likely to happen.

When this happens, my advice is living with it.

First, if your case is so weak that real facts don’t support your view, you get to know before anyone else. You can then go back to the drawing board, drop the issue, or go ahead on a campaign with no real evidence to back you up. A campaign you are likely to fail.

Second, any report that backs your views 100% is going to look by it has written up by a cheerleader or ghost written by you. Even if your own side salivate and celebrate, it is not going to be taken seriously by the people who count.

Third, when you disagree with your own report’s findings, acknowledge it. Denial is not a winning strategy. People do not mind when you report that real experts don’t back your ideas 200%.

Fourth, I think it is good that the people you paid to do a report disagree with you on some points. It makes clear you have not bought your very own hagiography to clone your narrow world view.

Finally, if the Commission feel compelled to revise the legislation, in light of a damming report by the Auditors, you’ll have all the evidence and recommendations you need to feed into the process. Maybe, you’ll get a surprising call from the Commission asking if you don’t mind if they use your report to prepare their new proposal.

 

Timing made easier – review clauses

It is not even hard to predict when to get this all ready. All legislation has review clauses. They advertise when work is meant to start. There is no reason to be caught out.

And, if you are serious about influencing public policy, you’ll be serious about winning the battle of ideas. You’ll have a rolling research agenda to answer the most pertinent public policy questions. You’ll be speaking with the Commission and Member State officials, politicians, and think tanks to know the questions they are asking and bring the answers to the table.

This takes several years. This is going to take patience, focus and financial resources to play out the fully policy cycle. It is not for the feint hearted.