Consumer, Rights Groups Handicapped in Information Society Debates

Different civil society groups lead on different issues, said Michelle Childs, head of European affairs for the Consumer Project on Technology (CPTech). The European Consumers’ Organization (BEUC), the umbrella group for consumer matters, is often the “civil society group of choice” for the European Commission and therefore is invited to participate in consultations.

The information society arena tends to be dominated by privacy and data protection campaigners -- strong national groups and, at the EU level, European Digital Rights (EDRi), said Childs. In IP, Nosoftwarepatents.org, the Free Software Foundation Europe and the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) figured in a 2005 dispute over so- called computer-implemented inventions’ patentability. “We all tend to come together in informal or formal alliances when a new piece of legislation is being promoted or a directive reviewed,” she said. In addition, the Transatlantic Consumer Dialog, whose IP working group is chaired by CPTech Dir. James Love, formally lobbies EU (and U.S.) officials.

U.S. civil liberties groups occasionally are invited to take part in key consultations, said EDRi board member Sjoera Nas. The Electronic Privacy Information Center, Electronic Frontier Foundation, ACLU and IP Justice are among groups without a regular presence in Brussels that lobby on particular issues.

Can You Hear Me Now?

It’s much harder for civil society than business to be heard in EU debates, participants said. “The reasons are the same as everywhere,” Childs said: “Lobbyists have more numbers, more money and more access.” Several EU commissioners have made it clear that “industry are the prime consultees” and civil society “an afterthought or an irritant.”

BEUC and FFII have essentially permanent representation in Brussels; not so most civil liberties groups, said Nas. Without a permanent office, “it is very hard to follow all developments and seriously influence politics,” Nas said. New EU accreditation rules for attending meetings make it even tougher for occasional lobbyists to enter the Brussels arena, she said. With only one pass available per organization -- and only groups with “serious” offices in Brussels allowed to apply -- civil society lobbyists must “depend on a friendly European Parliament member to invite you to and pick you up at the entrance, and invite you back again after you went out for lunch,” Nas said.

The absence of a stronger, more permanent civil society lobby stems from a “very simple issue": Money, said Nas. Consumer unions get steady incomes from their publications and services. With little to no funding, digital rights groups are run almost entirely on a part-time, voluntary basis, Nas said. U.S. citizens are more aware of the need to support civil rights groups, but Europeans “seem to think it is a government’s job to fund its own opposition” -- in most of Europe, a rarity -- she said.

Compared with industry’s huge lobbying war chests, used to hire professionals and rent Brussels turf, civil society advocates have but “a few occasional color copies and train tickets to Brussels,” Nas said. But many MEPs know the skew in power and recognize the tilt of the information they get, so they give civil society “a welcome ear for our input,” she said. That doesn’t always assure victory, as proven by Parliament’s approval of a fiercely fought communications traffic data retention measure.

Now as in the past, EC focus on a single pan-European market tends to require a supply-side rather than a demand side focus, said Childs. The idea is that if the supply side works, benefits will flow to consumers. In fairness, she said, “telecom is slightly different: It is clear that the liberalization agenda is now more mature and there has been a focus on consumer issues.” IP remains under industry domination, with an “IP arms race between the EU and the U.S. for ever stronger protections and limits on user exceptions,” Childs said.

Thin European press coverage of EU-level events “gives industry a free hand to lobby the EU with little public knowledge or complaint,” IP Justice Exec. Dir. Robin Gross said. European media tend to cover nationally, she said.

“Cozier” ties exist between industry and EU officials than seen in the U.S., Gross said. Example: In 2003, the EU IP rights enforcement directive was progressing through the European Parliament. Its shepherd was reporting member Janelly Fourtou, wife of interim Vivendi Universal CEO Jean- Rene Fortou, who “stood to gain a windfall from the new directive,” Gross said.

As industry lobbyists do, civil society groups dislike the Council of Ministers’ opaque decision making. But where industry lobbyists often can press “at home” to get their govts. do the “right thing,” but many civil liberties groups lack presences in each member state, said Childs.

Many key decisions occur at the World Summit on the Information Society, World Trade Organizations (for telecom issues) and World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and other such conclaves, said Childs. As in current talks on an updated WIPO broadcasting treaty, the EU position is decided by the Council of Ministers, usually without public consultation, and then pushed at the international level by the Commission. By the time a directive is proposed at the EU level to carry out the treaty, some terms no longer are open to amendment, Childs said. Industry lobbyists have the time and money for activities aimed at “trumping” the EU process, but civil society doesn’t, she said.

The software patent fight proved the exception to the rule on civil society’s lack of clout, said Erik Josefsson, who heads FFII’s Brussels office. MEPs were “bored to death” with corporate lobbyists, and eager to hear all sides on the computer-implemented inventions directive. They appreciate FFII’s effort to illuminate what is viewed as a “complex and boring” issue, giving the group an unusually strong voice.

FFII differs from other civil liberties groups in that members come from civil society, nongovernmental bodies and small-to-midsized businesses, Josefsson said. Once it made its agenda against software patents clear, “money came” from individuals and companies happy to have someone knocking on doors in Brussels. The gap between FFII and other civil society groups derives from FFII’s “presence” in Brussels, he said: “That makes all the difference.”

BEUC might beg to differ. In late Nov., the Brussels- based consumer group voiced “indignation” at being left out of crucial EC talks on a new approach to online content. The “Sherpa Group” created by Information Society & Media Comr. Viviane Reding to tackle IP, digital rights management and piracy issues “is composed exclusively of industry representatives,” BEUC told the commissioner.

Reform Proposals Too Lax?

The EC is eyeing a “transparency initiative” aimed at spotlighting EU financial and governmental processes -- and at avoiding Abramoff-type scandal. Administration Comr. Siim Kallas is said to want an EU-wide lobbyist registry showing who’s doing what on whose behalf. But as reported by EUObserver.com, Kallas want a voluntary registry.

Kallas doesn’t go far enough, Childs said. There’s no really open record of private meetings between lobbyists and Commission officials, MEPs and Ministers. There’s often “no clarity about the input made by lobbyists” on early drafts of legislation, she said, urging clear, consistent rules on who should be on working groups and why. The Council of Ministers opens its decision-making processes only on certain issues, she said.

The core problem is that the EC and Council themselves aren’t transparent to their own govts., said Josefsson. For example, Sweden’s parliamentary committee on EU affairs is supposed to be briefed by the govt. on EU level events, but isn’t. “You can blame corporate lobbyists,” but it’s govt. institutions themselves that aren’t open, Josefsson said.