How does the Commission adopt proposals – Interservice consultation

The European Commission does not just invent proposals and publish them out of the blue. That may be what the Daily Mail tells their readers, but the truth is a lot duller.

 

Generally, before any decision is taken by College of Commissioners is taken, the documents requiring a decision by the College needs to have gone through Inter Service Consultation (ISC), usually know by the French acronym of CIS.

 

Below you can see a process chart for ISC.

 

Key Considerations

 

Normal procedure

 

The normal procedure requires the lead department (D-G) to get the approval of the other Commission departments. They need to have the approval of the legal service and the Sec-Gen, and often other departments (BUDG,COMM,ECFIN) ESTAT,HR,OLAF, and EEAS).

 

If the package of documents is longer than 20 pages it will last 15 days (3 weeks), and if under it lasts 10 days (2 weeks).

 

After the inter-service consultation, the proposal is finally reviewed by the Head of Cabinet and then it sent for adoption by the College of Commissioners.

 

The documents must be presented in English or French.

 

 

Majority Needed

 

The College adopt measures by simple majority (15 out of 28). A vote is very rare and it usually goes through by agreement. I recall former French Commissioner Barnier under President Barroso calling for a vote on support for bio-fuel, although that was a rare instance. Commissioner Barnier lost.

 

Fast Track

 

For some urgent or politically sensitive matters, the lead D-G can request the Sec-Gen for a fast track inter-service consultation. In this case, the Inter-Service Consultation lasts 48 hours.

 

 

 

Lobbying ISC?

 

Sometimes people will ask if it is worth while lobbying the inter-service consultation process. I am of the view it is. I think it is for three reasons.

 

First, from my experience, many legislative proposals from the Commission are often finally adopted without significant alteration. This is especially the case with delegated legislation.

 

But, even for ordinary legislation, I would guesstimate that the trials, tribulations and alterations of the Parliament, EP, campaigns and lobby change between 10-20% of the proposal, and often not at a fundamental level. If you want to change what will land up on the statute book, changing it at inter-service stage is often your real last and best hope.

 

Second, there are a limited number of people deciding at this stage, from officials in the Services, the Cabinets and maybe the Commissioners. That makes it a lot easier to meet with and put forward a persuasive case to them.

 

Third, I have found working on what is seen by many as the technical, scientific and arcane world of fisheries, that adapting your argumentation so that it makes sense in plain English is a must. Using clear examples, often with comprehensible charts, is a great advantage, bundled together in a two pages (annexes allowed).

 

But, if you want to close down conversation, or at least close down the take up of your message, a briefing paper and conversation littered with algorithms, appeals to sound science, and technical jargon is a sure-fire way of making sure officials shut down very quickly.

 

Even though there are clear benefits, many interests do not engage. Often it takes large organizations or coalitions too long to get internal sign off to advance a clear position, and they find they are asking for meetings with the officials from the Services or Cabinets after the Commission has adopted a position.  Indeed, this challenge only becomes tougher if the Commission use the 48 Fast Track procedure.

 

 

 

Better Law Making

This challenge may become less with the Commission set to publish a more up to date rolling public Agenda Planning. Also, the Commission’s self commitment to have 4 week public consultations on initiatives before the College adopts significant proposals will be helpful for the public to alert the political masters of the Commission of defects in any proposals being considered for a proposal.

 

Another welcome step is the requirement that proposals being entertained for inter-service consultation have been validated by the Commissioner(s), relevant Vice-President(s) and the First-President and entered into Agenda Planning.   However, this requires the lead departments to be more self-critical on the side effects of their initiatives, and to flag more clearly the impacts. I have been surprised that some proposals, both ordinary and delegated legislative proposals, have secured adoption without validation by the First Vice-President or others. Indeed, sometimes important proposals are not entered into Agenda Planning at all!

 

Blue Fin Tuna on CITES listing – A short case study

 

An example of the benefits of engaging is my then work for WWF. In September 2009, the then Environment Commissioner, Mr. Dimas, had tabled a proposal to support the listing of Blue Fin Tuna as an endangered species deserving of protection under CITES. Commissioner Borg, Fisheries and Maritime Affairs, did not support this.

 

With then colleagues in Greenpeace we reached out to many Commissioners and held meetings with many Cabinets. Unexpected support came from the College who supported Mr Dimas, much to the consternation of DG MARE and Commissioner Borg.

 

These two departments were unable to resolve their differences of opinion, despite many weekly meetings of special chefs (usually on a Friday), Head of Cabinet (usually on a Monday), College (usually on a Wednesday but on a Tuesday if the Parliament is in Strasbourg) and Commissioners bi-laterals.

Fortunately, the Financial Times ( see e.g. here and here) and other press outlets decided to follow the story and they provided a rare insight into the Commission’s inner workings on agreeing a proposal.

 

President Barroso intervened after a number of weeks of non-movement and brokered a solution that supported an adjusted proposal from the Environment Commissioner.

 

Agreement was clearly facilitated by President Sarkozy, who surprisingly came around to support the idea for CITES listing of Blue Fin. The Commission of course prefers to table proposals that will be supported by Member States and takes soundings from key national capitals.

 

In many cases, it seems some Commissioners take their line on supporting a proposal not from their Department but from advisement from their national capitals (notwithstanding any oath of office they may sworn).