Once a Commission proposal is published, you need to focus on getting the Council and European Parliament to back your preferred position.
You have a limited window of opportunity to influence decisions of Ministers and MEPs. Once they have reached agreement on an issue it is hard for them them to walk back on even an informal agreement.
Your focus must not be inward focused. By that I mean, you should not spend a lot of time in internal discussion groups fine tuning positions and amendments. It is all too common for an organization, both for and not for profit, to be so focused on getting their position agreed to internally that they miss the key opportunities to influence political decisions.
You need to realise that you are involved in influencing legislation, where you have no formal seat at the table. Your only capacity to influence decisions is by tabling convincing public policy and legislative solutions.
David v Goliath
Fortune favors the agile, bold and swift.
If you can come to table on day 1 after the Commission tables their proposal, with a clear solution, and practical amendments, you will mark yourself out from most.
If you can knock on the doors of the right people, at the right time, with the right evidence and solutions, your chances of influencing decisions are increased.
This does not take a great deal of time and resources. It take a great deal of focus to have well crafted positions, solutions, and legislative text/amendments available early on to hand over when needed.
You’ll see from the case study of the Batteries legislation revision, that there was no surprise change was likely to happen. Any one who was prudent would be ready to go with solutions by early-mid 2019.
The you could have the network inside the Commission, EP and Council (in Brussels and the national capitals) to champion your position.
You’ll need to have a good network in the Commission, within both the Inter Service Steering Group (ISSG), Inter-Service Consultation Cabinet leads, and the lead Task Force of services taking the lead. You’ll be bringing sound public policy solutions and legal solutions to the table. If you have a good network, you’ll have access to draft text at an early stage, and you’ll likely be sounded out for viable solutions.
If you know the timetable for adoption, both within the Commission, but also the EP and Council, you’ll know when to step in both in Brussels and in the national capitals, to bring your case to the table. And, often, you’ll realize that the best way to bring about support is to get others to make the case for you.
You need to step in early. You can’t be hanging around in internal near academic discussions about some ideal text. Once the machinery starts, your chances to influence become ever less as time progresses. If you miss the Commission’s adoption process (which I would not advise), you have often only have a few months before political alignment within the EP and the Council are firmed up. As a rule of thumb, you have 2 months to get your issue taken up.
You’ll see from the ebbs and flows of the exchange between the EP and the Council, positions get firmed up quickly. Once your issue is agreed to by either the EP or the Council, your chances of getting either side to reverse position is limited.
At the hear of the process if the Commission. A small team inside the Commission will be in charge of the preparation of the file, getting the proposal adopted by the Commission, and then having that proposal backed , as much in tact as possible, by the Council and the EP. They’ll work with both the EP and Council to prepare non-papers and compromise text. Your work will be a lot easier if you have a good working relationship with the Commission’s negotiating team.
Case Study
Below I have chunked down the steps involved in the adoption of the ongoing of the revised batteries proposal.
Revision of on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning batteries and waste batteries, repealing Directive 2006/66/EC and amending Regulation (EU) No 2019/1020)
Legislative Process: Ordinary Legislative Procedure (co-decision)
Proposal drafted by a Taskforce from DG GROW and ENV
- 9 April 2019: Evaluation of the Batteries Directive (link)
- June 2019: First round of consultations by DG GROW
- 16 July 2019: Political Guidelines for the next Commission (link)
- November 2019: First round of consultations by DG GROW
- 1 December 2019: European Commission take office
- December 2019: Cabinet political decision on a single legal instrument would be replacing the Batteries Directive
- 11 December 2019: The European Green Deal Communication (link). Calls for “Legislation on batteries in support of the Strategic Action Plan on Batteries and the circular economy with an indicative timetable of June 2020).
- 29 January 2020: European Commission Work Programme , Annex II, Item 9, Revision of the EU Battery Directive
- February 2020: First meeting of Inter Service Steering Group (ISSG[1]).
- February 2020: Second round of consultations
- 18 March 2020: RSB Upstream meeting
- May: Second round of consultations
- 28 May 2020: Inception Impact Assessment feedback open
- 9 July 2020: Inception Impact Assessment feedback closed
- 22 July 2020: Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) meet
- 24 July 2020: Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) deliver a negative opinion on a draft of the Impact Assessment
- 18 September 2020: RSB positive opinion with reservation on a revised draft of the Impact Assessment
- November 2020: Inter-Service Consultation
- 10 December 2020: Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL concerning batteries and waste batteries, repealing Directive 2006/66/EC and amending Regulation (EU) No 2019/1020 (link)
- 10 December 2020: Feedback on proposal open
- 11 December 2020: Proposal transmitted to Council and European Parliament
- 11 December 2020: Presentation by Commissioner Sinkevičius of the Commission proposal for a Regulation to revise and repeal the current directive on batteries to Environment Committee
- 14 December 2020: Working Party on the Environment (WPE) examine proposal
- 17 December 2020: The Commission presented its proposal at the Environment Council. Council welcome proposal.
- 7-8 January 2021:WPE – Impact Assessment presented by the Commission, discussion on Sustainability and safety requirements
- 13 January 2021: Proposal presented Working Party on Competitiveness and Growth (Industry)
- 18 January 2021: WPE discussion on Sustainability and safety requirements, Procedure for amending restrictions on hazardous substances
- 19 January 2021: WPE discussion Labelling and information requirements
- 19 January 2021: EP Associated Committee ITRE Rapporteur appointed
- 2 February 2021: WPE discussion on End-of-Life management of batteries
- 11 February 2021: EP Associated Committee IMCO Rapporteur appointed
- 12 February 2021: WPE discussion on End-of-Life management of batteries
- 15 February 2021: WPE analysis on End-of-Life management of batteries
- 19 February 202: WPE analysis on End-of-Life management of batteries
- 24 February 2021: Committee for Opinion TRAN Rapporteur appointed
- 1 March 2021: Feedback on proposal closed
- 1 March 2021: WPE analysis of the legal basis of the proposal
- 1 March 2021: EP Environment Committee Rapporteur and Shadows appointed
- 15 March 2021: WPE analysis the Electronic exchange of information
- 18 March 2021: Informal videoconference of Environment Ministers orientation debate
- 22 March 2021: WPE analysis conformity of batteries
- 29 March 2021: WPE analysis of economic operators, market surveillance
- 13 April 2021: WPE concluded first reading concludes with General Provisions and Final Provisions
- 20 April 2021: WPE discussion on Presidency non-paper on Chapter II
- 21 April 2021: WPE discussion on Presidency non-paper on cross-cutting approach to batteries of light means of transport.
- 27 April 2021: WPE Presidency non-paper on Chapter VII
- 28 April 2021: WPE Presidency non-paper on Chapter VII
- 29 April 2021: EP Conference of the Presidents assign lead to ENV Committee
- 6 May 2021: WPE Presidency non-paper on Chapter VII
- 11 May 2021: WPE Presidency non-paper on Chapter VII
- 20 May 2021: WPE Presidency non-paper on Chapter VII
- 26 May 2021: WPE further discussed Chapter VII, Commission presentation on EPR
- 10 June 2021: Environment Council Exchange of Views
- 15 September 2021: Draft Report by Rapporteur
- 11 October 2021: EP ENV Committee debate
- 21 October 2021: EP ENV Committee Deadline for Amendments
- 27 October 2021: Presidency present compromise text
- 20 December 2021: Environment Council Exchange of Views
- 18 January 2022: Council experts of the Working Party on the Environment
- 25 January 2022: Council experts of the Working Party on the Environment
- 1 February 2022: Council experts of the Working Party on the Environment
- 8 February 2022: Council experts of the Working Party on the Environment
- 10 February 2022: Vote in Committee, first reading, adopted. 74 votes in favour, 8 against and 5 abstentions
- 15 February 2022: Council experts of the Working Party on the Environment
- 22 February 2022: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading
- 28 February 2022: Council experts of the Working Party on the Environment
- 2 -4 March 2022: Coreper consulted by Presidency on scope, process for restriction
- 2 March 2022: Deadline for Amendments for Plenary
- 4 March 2022: Council experts of the Working Party on the Environment
- 9 March 2022: Debate in Parliament
- 10 March 2022: Vote in Plenary, 584 votes in favour, 67 against and 40 abstentions.
- 11 March 2022: Presidency submit draft compromise to Coreper for approval
- 17 March 2022: Environment Council adopt General Approach
- 6 April 2022: Council’s Working Party on the Environment (WPE) prepare for first trilogue
- 20 April 2022: First trilogue
Checklist
Once a proposal is published, this is my checklist:
- Agree a response and have amendment text. This can’t take more than 2 weeks.
- Execute your pre-prepared lobby plan.
- Issue a press statement – Optional
- Issue a flash summary to your members/supporters
- Submit to the 4 week Feedback Process
- Review the opinion of the RSB (published at the same time as adoption) for evidence to support your position
- Schedule meeting with key MEPs : Rapporteur/Shadow lead Committee / Opinion Committee
- Schedule meetings with Perm Rep attaches and concurrently with file lead in national capitals
- Find out schedule of Working Party’s schedule for exchange on Articles.
- Keep track of exchange of discussions in the Working Party. Note that once agreement reached on an issue, walking back on it is hard.
- Keep track on the exchange of non-papers by the Commission Services
- Keep track on EP or Council Legal Service Opinions. They can be critical
- Meet with EP Group Advisers
- Meet with Commission negotiating team (HoU, dossier lead), & Sec Gen
- Meet with key MEPs
- Meet with Perm Reps
- Obtain a copy of the 4-column document
- Shadow meetings of the lead/opinion committee
- Shadow meetings of Political Groups
- Shadow meetings of the Working group
- Shadow meetings of COREPER
- Synchronize your relations with national governments in national capitals/Brussels
- Harness political relationships in national capitals with key decision makers in government
- Harness political relationships in national capitals with key decision makers in Parliament
- Know who in the EP, Council, and national capitals are the ‘real decision’ makers on this issue
- Adapt your language to persuade the ‘real decision’ makers
- Make sure all your people are on the ‘same message’ and report back
- Have a rolling 1-2 month plan of delivery and feedback. Tweak your plans every 1-2 months.
After thoughts
You need to start strong and look to influence the future of the proposal as soon as it is adopted. Political lines are agreed fast, and once agreed reversing agreements are very hard.
Ideally, a few months before the proposal is due to be published you’ll have met with the key Group Advisers and lead MEPs on the file in the EP to prime them. Your goal is to get a Group to use their points to become Rapporteur. The likely Rapporteur and Shadows is likely known a few months before adoption.
You’ll do the same with the Member States, looking to identify allies to support your position in the Council Working Groups and COREPER. This should be done via the attaché in Brussels and the national capital.
The trick is not to be stuck on internal deliberations preparing a response. You have around 2 weeks to turn this around.
The big no is to be so focused on your internal alignment that the Council and EP work out an informal political agreement, and in some cases a formal political agreement, before you have come up an internal position.
Your goal is to hit the legislative road running as soon as the file is adopted. As you have likely been engaged in lobbying on the inter-service consultation, and you have seen a version of a draft legislative text, this is easy enough.
You are not there to engage on everything or the creation of a legislative masterpiece. You need to focus down on a 3-5 priority must wins. The more things you engage on, the more likely it is you won’t deliver on anything.
You’ll likely prepare a position paper to support your general position that you can leave behind with MEPs and Member State officials. You may want to scrap a standard position paper and use more persuasive infographics to make your case, and leave your amendments and explanations in an annex.
Your position paper will be an iteration of the position paper you used for lobbing during inter-service consultation. This time round, your language will be less technical, and it helps to use charts and table, illustrative infographics, and real life proof points.
Keep in contact with the Commission’s negotiating team, their job is to find a working compromise between the EP and Council. Share 10 times more useful information than you receive.
Keep in contact with the Presidency negotiating team and EP Rapporteur/ Committee staffer assigned to draft report. Share 10 times more useful information than you receive.
[1] The Inter Service Steering Group (ISSG) for the Impact Assessment was set up by the Secretariat-General (SG). It included the following DGs and services: CLIMA (Climate Action), CNECT (Communications Networks, Content and Technology), COMP (Competition), ECFIN (Economic and Financial Affairs), EMPL (Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion), ENER (Energy), ESTAT (Eurostat), JRC (Joint Research Centre), JUST (Justice and Consumers), MARE (Maritime Affairs and Fisheries), MOVE (Mobility and Transport), OLAF (European Anti-Fraud Office), REGIO (Regional and Urban policy), RTD (Research and Innovation), SJ (Legal Service), TAXUD (Taxation and Customs Union) TRADE (Trade).