Examination of Witness (Questions 121-139)
Mr Tony Long
7 MAY 2008
Q121 Chairman: Thank you very much indeed,
Mr Long, for coming and giving evidence. This is on air. You will
be given a copy of the transcript afterwards and will obviously
have the opportunity of making any corrections to that and any
supplementary points. The purpose, as you know, of the Sub-Committee's
present inquiry is to consider the way in which European legislation
is initiated. Today we are hearing evidence from you and then
from the Freight Transport Association, and I think it is fair
to summarise that you are both effectively organisations which
will be keen to promote particular policies, and it may be those
policies went in opposite directions sometimes and we would be
interested to know what happens in that sort of situation. Let
me start with some of the specific questions. The first is the
general context for environment-related proposals. The Commission
has told us that the general framework in the area you are involved
in, EC action in the field of the environment, is provided by
the 6th Environment Action Programme and we would be interested
to know from you the sources of inspiration for this programme
and how rigidly it delineates the Commission's activity and European
activity once such a programme has been devised.
Mr Long: Thank you, my Lord Chairman, for inviting
me today to appear before your Committee and I hope I can help
you in your deliberations. My time in Brussels has been now 20
years, so I think I have watched four Commissions come and go
and possibly four European Parliaments. I do have to say, though,
by way of an introductory remark, that I do see the Brussels process
through one particular window and that is as a civil society organisation.
Whilst that window is getting somewhat larger, and somewhat more
important, I believe still that my observations have to be partial.
I am not privy to some of the processes that go on in Brussels,
for instance between, let us say, some of the Member States and
some of the institutions. These I would not be able to comment
upon. If you will permit me, my Lord Chairman, I would just like
to make two other very brief introductory remarks. One is that
I think it is very difficult for anybody to ignore the informal
ways in which Brussels works. I know that makes it somewhat difficult
for your Committee because it is not always easy to penetrate
these informal networks and even, in some cases, what I would
call networks based on friendships and knowledge of people over
some time. So that is something that I want to alert the Committee
to. It is what I sometimes call the network of policy communities
in Brussels. There are very, very many of them on very many subjects,
some of them quite specialised. The other point I want to make
by way of introduction is to get quite clear at the outset that
my organisation, or my office, does receive funding from the European
Commission. I get an annual operating grant from the European
Commission and whilst I do not think that influences my evidence
in any way, I would rather that it come out at the front rather
than through questioning. I just tell you that now.
Q122 Chairman: Can I just interpose?
Am I right in supposing that that is an indication of the priority
which the Commission gives to the environmental field as one of
the European objectives?
Mr Long: Yes, you are right to assume that.
In fact, my office has been receiving grants from the European
Commission since 1992, so the programme certainly goes back even
before that. I think it was instituted originally by the European
Parliament as a way of making sure that environmental voices get
heard in the decision-making processes in Brussels. For at least
ten or fifteen years there was really no proper legal basis for
that budget line. Then that was changed in the late 1990s. There
was a proper regulation that authorised the payments to the non-governmental
organisations. Now it is even more formalised because the LIFE+
Regulation approved last year under the co-decision procedure
actually formalises the payment to NGOs through what is called
Annexe 1.
Q123 Baroness O'Cathain: Could I
just ask, is every NGO in that budget, that grant, and do you
have to fight amongst yourselves for the World Wildlife Fund or
for Aid to Africa, or whatever?
Mr Long: The answer to that question, my Lord
Chairman, is that the eligibility criteria are for environmental
non-governmental organisations operating at a European or certainly
more than at a Member State level. There are very strict criteria.
At the moment something like 35 environmental NGOs benefit from
a budget line which is at about €7 million per year. I would
think, therefore, the average grant is somewhere in the vicinity
of €200,000. My organisation gets €600,000. In my case
that is about 15 per cent of my total annual expenditure.
Q124 Chairman: Your total grant was?
Mr Long: The budget line for that is about €7
million to €8 million.
Q125 Chairman: That is an interesting
insight, if I may say so. This means that once the European Union
has decided that a particular area should have attention, it can
not only promote it itself but get others to promote it to it?
Mr Long: Quite so! I will now turn to the question
which you posed to me, which is the 6th Environment Action Programme.
There have been the five preceding Action Programmes, starting
in 1972 with the very first one at the time of the Stockholm conference.
It is clear to me that every Action Programme has built on previous
Action Programmes: the 5th Environment Action Programme was called
"Towards Sustainability" and it lasted for ten years,
1992 to 2002. In the course of that the EU adopted a Sustainable
Development Strategy. That was in June 2001 under the Swedish
presidency in Gothenburg. So the 5th Environment Action Programme
was the precursor of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy and
then the 6th Environment Action Programme from 2002 onwards is
seen as the delivery mechanism for the environmental component
of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy. It is a little bit
convoluted. What I am trying to say is that the 5th Environment
Action Programme begat the Sustainable Development Strategy; the
Sustainable Development Strategy influenced the shape and nature
of the 6th Environment Action Programme. That is a little bit
the source of inspiration. Two further things I would comment
upon, if I may, my Lord Chairman. One is that the 6th Environment
Action Programme, unlike the previous five, had as its legal basis
co-decision procedures. So it had two readings in the Council
and two readings in the Parliament. That makes the commitments
in the plan more important. In other words, it had a different
legal basis than the previous action plans. The second point I
want to make is that unlike the previous action plans, the 6th
Environment Action Programme promised seven thematic strategies.
Of those seven thematic strategies, several of them had legislative
intentions attached to them. So in that case you can say that
the 6th Environment Action Programme with its co-decision procedures
actually signalled legislative intent on the part of the EU.
Q126 Chairman: That is the history
of what has happened. What about the more personal sources of
inspiration for these programmes? Where did the initiative come
from? Partly from your organisation, perhaps, and partly from
others?
Mr Long: I would want to draw a distinction,
my Lord Chairman, between the Action Programmes and the amount
of attention they would receive in, let us say, the day to day,
week to week or month to month activity in my office as compared
with actual legislation. With only so many resources, I have to
think carefully about whether I put them into Action Programmes
or whether I put them into policy communications or legislative
activity. So I think I would have to be honest and say that the
amount of attention I give to the action plan process is perhaps
less than you are hinting at in your question.
Q127 Chairman: Who does devise them
then?
Mr Long: I think the process of devising the
Action Programmes is pretty much a Commission, and DG Environment
particularly, inspired and led process. I think it has changed
somewhat now because of this co-decision procedure. I have to
say that my organisation and the other nine environmental groups
in Brussels which make up what we call the "Green 10"
had to come to the rescue of the seven thematic strategies in
the middle of 2005. This was only six or so months after the new
Commission had taken over. There was very great attention being
given at that time to the Lisbon strategy, to economic competitiveness.
There were some rather severe questions being asked by the new
Commission of these environmental intentions in the seven strategies.
Q128 Chairman: Who are the Green
10 who came to the rescue of them?
Mr Long: The Green 10 is an informal network
of ten environmental non-governmental organisations. We formed
ourselves in 1990 as the G4 and then we have grown over the years
to become the Green 10.
Q129 Chairman: Were you successful
in coming to the rescue of the thematic strategies?
Mr Long: Yes, we were. If the Committee wants
to enquire further when you are in Brussels, I think you will
be told that the intervention by the environmental NGOs in a timely
way at a Commission college meeting in June 2005 was very important
in making sure that the progress on the seven strategies would
be secure.
Q130 Lord Jay of Ewelme: Could I
go back to the Green 10 for a moment? Are all the ten subsidised
in part by the Commission?
Mr Long: Nine out of the ten are subsidised.
Greenpeace does not take subsidy.
Q131 Lord Jay of Ewelme: Do you feel,
and do you think the Commission feels that your approach or your
criticism, as it were, is tempered in any way by that?
Mr Long: My Lord Chairman, I can only judge
from my interactions with the Commission in its many different
forms, well beyond the DG Environment. I do not think anybody
would come to the conclusion that our positions are influenced
by the fact that we receive EU funds.
Q132 Chairman: Were there people
in the context you have mentioned, rescuing the thematic strategies,
lobbying or arguing for a contrary view that there was too much
regulation, too many requirements and that there should be relaxation,
as perhaps the new Commission was considering?
Mr Long: I think it is absolutely fair to say
that—and that is why I put it in the context of the overwhelming
competitiveness arguments which were going on at that time. I
think the new Commission was susceptible to hearing those arguments.
Perhaps it came, as a little bit of a shock to some of the Commissioners
that the commitment to the seven strategies had been made under
co-decision procedures. So a commitment to proceed with those
strategies had already been taken by the Council and the Parliament.
Q133 Baroness O'Cathain: Just on
that last point, do you mean to say that they did not actually
know about it, although there had been this decision taken?
Mr Long: I am getting into a place where I cannot
really comment because I do not know the deliberations in the
College. It is not usual for something of this nature to get such
a lot of attention in the College of Commissioners. I think it
was unusual that it should have got to that point where the Commissioners
were actually talking about it themselves rather than at the Chef
du Cabinet level.
Q134 Chairman: Where was the pressure
coming from on the Commission? Was industry speaking? Were cement
works and factories objecting to the degree of regulation foreseen
by the objectives, or what?
Mr Long: If I may just mention the seven areas
which were covered by the thematic strategy, they were air pollution,
the marine environment, the sustainable use of resources, waste
prevention and recycling, pesticides, soil quality and the urban
environment. I think the question marks on each of the seven were
of a different nature. I am sure, although I cannot say for certain,
that some people had been saying, "What on earth has the
Commission got to do with the urban environment? That's a Member
State responsibility." So that would surely have been the
basis of opposition or concern. Another one would have been soil,
with some asking, "What on earth is the Commission doing
with soil and how would that relate to agriculture?" I think
the really controversial strategies are probably the waste prevention
and recycling and the sustainable use of resources. I think there
were deep industry interests and concerns about those.
Q135 Chairman: The reality is that
you do not seem to have a very direct contact with those who are
lobbying on the other side. This is your assumption?
Mr Long: My Lord Chairman, I have got many contacts
with people lobbying on the opposite side, but again that is normally
in the context of, for instance, legislation on REACH or legislation
on the Mining Waste Directive or legislation on others. That is
where I really come into contact.
Chairman: We will come to that then.
Q136 Baroness O'Cathain: I just wanted
to go back to the €600,000 you get from this fund of €7
million. How do you use it? You lobby to try and influence decision-making.
Can you give us one or two examples of what you have done with
some of that money as the World Wildlife Fund?
Mr Long: My annual operating budget for my office
is €4.2 million. €600,000 I think is something like
15%. That money goes into the general budget, so it pays for the
office rent, telephones, photocopiers, salaries. I do not allocate
it in a particular way. It is called "overhead costs"
or core grant subsidies.
Q137 Baroness O'Cathain: So you are
not being paid to lobby then?
Mr Long: No, I am not.
Chairman: I think there is a question from Lord
Bowness and then one from Lord Wright.
Q138 Lord Bowness: Mr Long, one thing
I hear a lot of are complaints about Wildlife Directives and the
influence you have within the Commission. Do you monitor yourselves
as an organisation how respective Member States enforce these
directives? Do you think that we as a country are particularly
assiduous in the way, for example, Wildlife Directives are interpreted
in this country? You will have read lots of articles about newts
and ponds for newts costing £150,000, and so forth. Do you
think there is a little bit of that in this? Can you comment on
that?
Mr Long: My Lord Chairman, the two major pieces
of environmental legislation affecting wildlife are the Wild Birds
Directive 1979 and the Habitats Directive 1992. Generally speaking
those two pieces of legislation are monitored by environmental
organisations in the respective Member States. So my organisation
at a Brussels level does not particularly get to see how these
two pieces of legislation are being implemented in Greece, or
in Poland, or in the UK, so I am one step removed from that actual
implementation process.
The Committee adjourned from 3.30 pm to
3.39 pm due to a power failure.
Q139 Chairman: Can I suggest that we leave the
question of funding? We have had helpful answers. It is not the
primary focus of our inquiry, which is on the initiation of legislation
and also the initiation rather than follow-up or implementation,
which in the long-term is really a national matter. Is there anything
more you want to say about how the Environment Action Programmes
are translated into short-term goals? Is that outside your primary
focus, how they are translated into Annual Policy Strategies and
into Annual Legislative Work Programmes? Is there anything you
want to add on that?
Mr Long: My Lord Chairman, perhaps because now
time is getting a little bit tight, I would like to point the
Committee towards the European Climate Change Programme, which
started in 2000 and lasted for two years. It spawned quite a lot
of legislation, and indeed created a European Climate Change Programme
II, and from those processes came, for instance, the European
Emissions Trading Scheme, the Biofuels Directive, and so forth.
So in a way the European Climate Change Programme will be interesting
for you as a more transparent process of initiation than the Environment
Action Programme. That is just my feeling.
Chairman: Thank you. Lord Bowness?
| 
