Uwe Nikolai Lorenzen
Lobbying in EU institutions
First of all I would like to thank you all for inviting me here to Riga to speak to you about lobbying
in EU institutions. You are at any time welcome to ask me questions during my presentation.
The Agenda for my speech is as follow (slide 1)
LGDK – national and international
Official and unofficial connections in the EU
4 cases
- Convention on the future of Europe
- Repretureship of a Danish politician
- Town-Twinning
Observations and conclusions in regard to lobbying in EU institutions
Firstly I would like to tell you something about how LGDK is organised.
Ass you know LGDK is an association for the municipalities in Denmark and all the municipalities,
with the exception of Copenhagen and Frederiksberg is members. We have a strong institutional
connection, both to the political and administrative level, to all tree levels of government – state,
county and municipality.
LGDK political structure is build on a political board with 17 members (Slide 2). These members
select the members of the six committees in LGDK. These committees are the Committee on
technical and environmental affairs, the Committee on children and culture, the Committee on
industrial affairs and administration, the Committee on social affairs and labour market, the
Committee on wages and personal and from 1998 we also have the Committee on international
affairs.
This was done to strengthen the municipalities in Denmark relation to the international aspects, first
and four-most the EU. The EU has played a larger and larger role for the municipalities since the
signing of the Single European Act in 1986. With the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992
the EU was strengthened radically in so far as it conferred upon the European Union direct powers
to act in spheres hitherto reserved for local authorities. These spheres include the environment,
public procurement and tenders, as well as the areas of labour market and social policies.
Local Government Denmark main target is to seek influence where these decisions are made. Since
it is a fact that more and more EU decisions have direct political, economic and administrative
repercussions at the local level, it follow naturally the LGDK seeks influence on the EU decision-
marking process. As showed in this slide (slide 3) LGDK is either represented directly in, or in
associated with, an array of different European and international bodies all working at influencing
the EU decision-making process.
To strengthen our involvement with these bodies LGDK established an office in Brussels as part of
our international activities in 1994. Today the EU Office consist of one head of office, six EU
consultants - of witch 2 are based in Brussels – three students – of witch one is in Brussels and two
secretaries – one of them are part-time and based in Brussels.
1
Uwe Nikolai Lorenzen
We try to influencing the EU decision-marking process at an early stage – so that the views and
interests of the local authorities are taken into account already at the drafting stage in coming EU
legislation. We have however still, not nearly the same power in international issues as we have on
the national level (slide 4) . Because of that we consider us selves as a large fish in a small sea on
the national level. On the international level we are, however a small fish in a huge sea.
(Slide 5) LGDK’s most important channels of influence on international issues are:
1. Direct representation in The Committee of the Regions
2. Co-operation with the Danish members of the European Parliament
3. Contact to the Commission (working groups, individual cases etc.)
4. Representation in the Danish ministerial EU special committees
5. Contact to the Danish Parliament’s European Committee
6. Representation in several European co-operation arrangements
(CEMR, CLRAE, etc.)
7. Co-operation with the other Nordic associations of local and regional governments and
networks in Brussels.
1.) (Slide 6) LGDK currently exert direct influence in the EU decision-marking process by virtue of
politicians from different Danish municipalities in EU’s Committee of the Regions. The Committee
of Regions puts forward opinions on EU initiatives important to local and regional authorities;
especially in the instances where local and regional authorities are ultimately in charge of
implementing the decision. LGDK has 4 politicians out of a total number of 9 Danish politicians in
the Committee of Regions, witch have 222 members.
2) Where the Committee of Regions is a direct and official channel of influence for LGDK the
European Parliament is an in-direct and unofficial channel. We have 2 scheduled meetings with the
Danish members of the European Parliament a year – among with the other representatives for the
local and regional level. Here we discus the different cases and budgets which have and impact on
the local and regional level. Our politicians often have a good relationship with the MEP – some of
the know etch other from there political parties or from the constituency from witch they are
elected. We also have a continued contact with the MEPs and their assistants in Brussels, due to the
fact that our Brussels offices are working in the same circles.
3) Another in-direct channel of influence is LGDK contact to the Commission. This contact is often
though working-groups, projects and individual cases, where LGDK is represented by civil
servants. This can both be people working in the EU offices and from the other departments in
LGDK. An example was the Infoville project, where our office for administration and information
technology worked together with 7 European regions in working out the prospects for city-portals
on the Internet. This is a way to get our fingerprint on the development within the EU and
Commission.
2
Uwe Nikolai Lorenzen
4) (Slide 7). Representation of LGDK in the Danish EU decision-marking process. In the Danish
EU decision-marking process, the formal influence of interest groups makes itselfs felt through
the so-called special EU committees. The Danish EU decision-marking process thus follows the
pattern illustrated on this slide. The chairmanship and secretariat of each special committee is
located under the appropriate ministry to which the Commission initiative belongs. LGDK is
represented in 12 special committees concerned with legal issues, environment, regional and
industrial politics, shipping, social and labour market, taxes, health, technical trade barriers,
education and research. It is the offices in LGDK dealing with these issues that represent us in
the committees.
5) An other way of influencing the Danish EU decision-marking process is though the European
Affairs Committee of the Folketing – the Danish parliament. LGDK’s political representatives
in the Committee of regions are in regular contact with the European Affairs Committee.
Further more is the EU offices in Copenhagen is often in contact to the secretariat of the
European Affairs Committee, in regard to meeting, conferences and similar, where we co-
ordinate our different work-tasks.
6) (Slide 8 den om de mange KL relationer). LGDK is also represented in several European co-
operation arrangements. One of the more important is the Council of European Municipalities
and Regions – or CEMR as it’s known. The CEMR deals primarily with co-ordination of the
municipalities in Europe relationship with the EU, plus collaboration between Eastern and
Western Europe. Furthermore the CEMR oversees different EU programmes of relevance for
local authorities, among these the EU Twin Town Foundation. LGDK is directly represented in
the CEMR in both the executive committee – by our CEO Peter Gorm Hansen, and the political
committee, by Mayor of Næstved Municipality Henning Jensen.
Other institutions of interest for LGDK is the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of
Europe (CLRAE) under the European Council. CLRAE is the only representative and formally
institutionalised body representing the populace of all the democratic countries in Europe.
LGDK appoints 2 members of CLRAE’s Congress of Local and Regional Authorities. One of
CLRAE most important results was the adoption of the “European Charter on Local and
Regional Self- Government”. It is today signed by all applicant countries and EU members and
ratified by all of these countries, with the exception of Belgium and France. The Charter is one
of the LGDK issues with regards to the Convention of Europe’s future – but more about that
later on.
7) The tasks and challenges facing local authorities in the Nordic countries have many common
aspects. This is probably due to their similarly decentralised approach to solving problems and
to how the countries are in the same way divided on the local authority level. Therefore the
Nordic countries exchange information and co-operated on lots of international activities. This
is maybe best illustrated by the fact that LGDK works from the same address in Brussels as our
Swedish, Finish Norwegian and Dutch sister organisations, and hopefully soon the Association
of Local Authorities in Lithuania will also join us at Rue de la Science.
3
Uwe Nikolai Lorenzen
This slide (Slide 9) shows you how we in LGDK have divided our tasks – so that the Copenhagen
offices deals with the issues best dealt with there an the Brussels offices deals with issues best
influenced from Brussels. And here it is our clear experience that the Brussels offices are
fundamental if LGDK wants to take care of our international interests.
(Behold Slide på)
So - I have been talking to you about what LGDK sees as important areas to influence. Now I will
try to illustrated this by talking about a couple of examples, where we have been lobbying EU
institutions to get our massage though.
Convention on Europe’s future
The convention on Europe’s future is the first example I will choose. In the Nice summit in
December 2000 it was decided to establish a Convention on the future of Europe. This Convention
needs to workout a document with proposals and recommendation for a reedited EU Treaty. A
Treaty witch re-thinks the way the EU are working – among other thinks marking EU ready for 25
or more member-states and more effectual in a number of tasks. Therefor LGDK choose to try
influence the development of the Convention, though a string of the channels you see on the slide.
This influence - or lobbing if you will – has been done on both a national and international level. On
the national level our meetings with European Affairs Committee of the Folketing/parliament has
been used to present the local and regional authorities wishes for the Convention. The politicians of
our board have presented a common local and regional contribution to the Convention, witch the
European Affairs Committee accepted to use in their work with the Convention.
On the international level LGDK have influenced the Committee of Regions input to the
Convention. This was done though the chairman of our Committee, Mayor of Næstved
Municipality Henning Jensen. He put forward our local ideas to the Committee of Regions input to
the Convention. Furthermore CEMR also had ideas to the Convention, and here we also tried to
influenced their proposal to the Convention, trough meetings and by adding ideas to their proposal.
Finally we sat up a lunch meeting in Brussels with Henning Christophersen, former Foreign-
minister of Denmark, and vice-president of the Commission, now en the Board of the Convention.
In this meeting we, again put forward our ideas to the Convention.
So all in all - we believe that our effort towards the Convention for the future of Europe has
emphasised the importance of the local and regional level of Europe, and thus made the conditions
for the local and regional level better in the Europe to come.
Rapporteurship in the Committee of Regions
Another field where it could be of great value to obtain influence is to have someone from your
organisation nomminated rapporteur when one of the EU Institutions -like for instance the
Committee of the Regions- is preparing an opinion.
4
Uwe Nikolai Lorenzen
Before you start the exercise, always remember:
- You must know the timing
- You must be sure that you have a candidate and good expertice in the subject
Often, one starts with the EU Commissions work programme to get an idea of which initiatives that
might be of interest for your organisation.
You then try to establish a contact to the person in the DG that is drafting the directive,
communication etc. Don’t expect to have the text. At this stage the important issue is to have a
confirmation whether or not the Commission intends to issue the document- which is not always the
case even if it is included in the work program
Next step is to try to have knowledge on the app. month/date where the Commission is expected to
adopt the final version.
You then make sure that one of your elected is ready to put him/herself up as a candidate for the
rapporteurship.
Another important element is to be absolutely sure of who is going to take the decision: is it the
Presidium? The subcommittee? Have the political groupings a de facto influence on the decision?
This is important of course, if you intends to have informal discussions with representatives for the
EU Institution etc.
If you have build up good relations to other member organisations (and you trust that they will not
snatch your own good idea) you could inform them and ask them to support your candidate.
Your organisation presents the candidate to the EU Institution ”the minute” the EU Commission has
adopted the document.
I have mentioned timing as an important element in order to present your candidate. Timing can
also be an important element for the EU Institution.
Often, the procedure to follow in the Institution - before the final version of the opinion can be
adopted - is long. Complaints are often heard that the adoption is too late, maybe even after the
delay put up by the Commission.
If you can convince the responsible person in the administration that the matter is urgent, they
might take steps to have the matter decided by written procedure. This is normally an advantage.
The delay is short and objections must be submitted to the secretariat before the time sceduled.
Town-Twinning Foundation
A third “real live” example on influencing or lobbying EU institutions is the work we have done
with regards the Town-Twinning Foundation. Every year the Commission supports the Town-
Twinning arraignments, across the hole of Europe, though a foundation.
5
Uwe Nikolai Lorenzen
This foundation is currently giving out 12 mill. Euros a year, and towns and municipalities can get
up to 50% of their expenses covert. This is an arraignment that LGDK is very pleased with, since it
is our members that benefit from it, and gets important international connections though. We
especially think it is important with the coming enlargement of the EU in mind. This is because, we
think that though co-operation we can learn from etch other and thereby making the steep into EU
easier – both for the applicant counties as well as for the present EU members.
It was therefor quite a chock for us, when we though one of our networks – the ELAN-net - fund
out that the Commission would cut the foundation to 7 mill. Euros a year – a cut on more than 40%.
So we sad down and made an approach on haw to keep the foundation on the present level.
On the national level we quickly – though our politicians – took contact to the Danish members of
the European Parliament – because they have to accept any change in the budget. We wrote them a
letter informing them about the situation and clarified our reasons for thinking that this was a poor
idea. We also put the situation forward on one of our meeting with the Danish MEP’s.
On the international level we contacted the CEMR - that always have played a large role on how the
town-twinning foundation has been working. They where quick to take up the clove and send out
massages to all it’s members informing them about the situation, and supplying them with standard
letters to there respective MEP’s. They also co-ordinated a meeting for all the Town-Twinning
officers in the CEMR and put down a statement on the imports of the foundation to the
Commission. This statement was delivered on an meeting with between the Commission and the
Town-Twinning officers of both EU members and applicant countries.
The result of this lobbying is still not known – but we hope that our effort helped the Parliament to
make the right decision and keep the foundation on the present level. But even if the decision goes
the other way – we know that we tried our most to securer the foundation – thereby being in a better
position to lobby for an increase in the foundation next year.
To end this end this speech of – I will show you some general observations and conclusions in
regard to lobbying in EU institutions.
6