14 July 2006   
P-3390/06
WRITTEN QUESTION by Eva Lichtenberger (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Data processing and consultation procedure on the `Future of patent
policy in Europe'

From 16 January 2006 to 12 April 2006, the European Commission carried out a
public consultation on the future of patent policy. The preliminary findings of
this consultation were been released on 5 July 2006. It appears that the
Commission conducted a parallel consultation under the name of `SME panel'. The
following website: http://www.eic.org.tr/Eng/duyuru_detay.aspx?ID=636 refers to
a document transmitted by DG MARKT and DG ENTR to the network of European Info
Centres (EIC) which says: `DG MARKT-D2 launched some weeks ago an online
consultation on patent systems. Nevertheless, taking into account the subject's
complexity and the difficulties faced in obtaining answers directly from SMEs,
DG MARKT considered that the SME Panel tool would be very useful because it
would support and complete the results already obtained in the online
consultation. [...] The SMEs which are targeted with the questionnaire are:
current patent holders, those who hold a patentable invention but who, for a
particular reason have not sought the patent, SMEs who have been sued by patent
holders for patent infringement, any other SMEs who have had to deal with the
patent system'.

The public consultation was open to any SME without restricting criteria such
as the ones mentioned above. Is it statistically exact to draw a graph where
both sets of data are merged -- as is the case in the table `Sectors of industry
-- Companies and industry associations' replies' on page 6 of the preliminary
findings?

Does the Commission think that it is statistically correct to process different
answers that have been received in two separate consultations carried out under
different preconditions? What was the motivation for drawing a second sample
from `patent oriented' SMEs in addition to the public consultation, and for
subsequently merging these two results?

In Ireland at least one EIC received funds for that purpose (see
http://www.eic.ie/ipm/smepanels.htm): `The Irish EIC Network has been given
funding by the European Commission to run a series of SME Panels throughout
Ireland to collect the views of SMEs on specific areas of EU policy'. What was
the total budget for that project and which budget line was utilised?

I disagree about funding, the commission is funding quite well, but not in the interest of citizens, only a  few selected friends.

If this is going to be copied to Wallstrom, and I think it should be, the connection between the quality of the consultation and the public's perception of the EU and its efforts to communicate with the citizens should be emphasised more.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

I'd be tempted to go into more detail on the question you've extracted, and discuss each of the choices they offer, to give them an inkling of our substantial objections.

(I'll provide text in a future comment)

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

That question completely excludes the option of re-bundling network operation from production and supply. This may not be the direction things have evolved in recent years, but the option should certainly be offered in a public consultation that purports to be neutral, and Europeans should be allowed to argue for choices different from those of the Commission.

That question can hardly be separated from that of regulating the existence of spare capacity, its size, who provides it, and how it is paid for.

reinforced powers and independence of national regulatory authorities

Again, this presupposes that Europe's energy policy will be based on indirect regulation rather than on national (or other) monopolies which require a different kind of relationship with the State This may be the facts on the ground, but the point of this consultation should not be necessarily to endorse the current policy choices, but to have a debate on the full range of possible solutions. Secondly, as with the question above, it totally excludes the choice of less independence, which is known to be preferred by some - they should be allowed to participate to this consultation as well.

harmonised grid access conditions (European Grid Code)

This question should probably be developped to include a discussion of the mechanisms to build the interconnection capacities that would be required for any harmonised grid code to make any sense. Should such capacities be built? Who should pay for them? What environmental safeguards should be put in place?

Create a European Energy Regulator

This question makes no sense until the goals, means and powers of such regulator are defined. Creating an institution whose role is not defined is pointless at best, and reckless if this is seen as a carte blanche for policies that have not been approved by,  or explained to Europeans to be implemented by a small committee.

Create a body of transmission system operators at the European level

This already exists (link to be provided). This question seems to be an open ended invitation to give it more formal roles and powers, without the content of these activities being discussed. Again, it appears to be a request for carte blanche action behind the scenes.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

I would lose "the definiton of".  I support you all the way, afew.


Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

The only corrections I would propose concern the first paragraph:

Instead of starting off with two full sentence quotes from the Green Paper, I would avoid quoting passages immediately, as the under-secretary of the under-secretary of the commissioner, who'll first read this, may end up thinking it's a line by line analysis of their text, which will be boring to read, and give it little attention.

I would say to you starry-eyed innocents that the goals of this letter are, in this very order:

1. captivate attention
   
2. once attention obtained, make our points heard

///////

Dear Commissioner Piebalgs,

The Commission you head is currently running a Public Consultation on the Green Paper, A European Strategy for Sustainable, Competitive and Secure Energy.

The Green Paper presents a certain number of major policy directions on this most vital of subjects.

It also states that the Public Consultation should open up a wide-ranging public debate (p.4) and a Community-wide debate (p.19).

However etc etc

Dear Commissioner Piebalgs,

The Commission you head is currently running a Public Consultation on the Green Paper, A European Strategy for Sustainable, Competitive and Secure Energy.

Anyway, it's a nitpick, but you need to re-phrase this.

The point about replying in English I can sort of understand. The normal Commission staff isn't made up out of translators. Asking people who can write in English to do so keeps costs down a little. Still, the Commission is supposed to have three working languages (also French and German). So it's strange why these are not included. I imagine the French and German governments will also be pissed off about this if it becomes routine.

I agree with DoDo and Alex in Toulouse that the last paragraph comes off a bit Eurosceptic. Here's another attempt at rephrasing it:

The European Tribune is an online forum for civic debate, with a strong focus on European issues. We consider the formulation of a European energy policy a vital and urgent matter about which all European citizens should be well informed and in which they should be actively involved. Top-down policy-making runs the risk of failing to obtain genuine consent and adhesion from citizens in times of change, and to cause political apathy. In this context, we regret that the Public Consultation on the Energy Green Paper should, through its pre-decided character, counteract the desired image of truly cooperative and democratic policy-making in the European Union.

Dear Commissioner Piebalgs,

Your Directorate is currently running a Public Consultation on the Green Paper, A European Strategy for Sustainable, Competitive and Secure Energy.

The Green Paper presents a number of major policy directions on this most vital of subjects and it states that the Public Consultation should open up a “wide-ranging public” (p.4) and “Community-wide” debate (p.19) on them. We therefore expected the Public Consultation to further and facilitate this wide-ranging debate, in the spirit of the Report on European Governance and the White Paper on a European Communication Policy.

We were disappointed to see that, apart from a one-day public hearing in Brussels, the consultation mechanism consists of an Interactive Policy-Making online questionnaire with multiple-choice answers. What is immediately striking about it is that the policy suggestions of the Green Paper are not offered as subjects for debate, or even as polling options (with choices such as : Agree strongly, Agree, Disagree, Disagree strongly, etc…), but are stated as axiomatic.
In Section A, Question 1, for example, we read:

The respondent is not asked her or his opinion of the goal, the goal is a given. One of the answers presented (arrowed in red) appears to offer a contrary option to the goal of a single market, but it is impossible to choose that answer while respecting the logic of the question. It follows that the respondent is logically led to make choices that support the apparently self-evident aim of “a genuine single market”.

The questions continue in the same way:

Question 2 : “In order to develop a single European grid…” (pre-supposed aim)

Question 3 : “Apart from ensuring a properly functioning market…” (pre-supposed condition)

Question 4 : “How can it be ensured that all Europeans enjoy access to energy at reasonable prices?” (pre-supposed strategic goal)

and so on.

Most of the questions in the questionnaire are restrictive, leading, and manipulative. The effect is to force respondents into apparent consent to the policy choices set out in the Green Paper. A polling institute which made use of questions of this kind would quickly be challenged and discredited.

Only at the end of the questionnaire, in Section G, are broader policy questions broached but in a summary manner. We find it difficult to understand why these questions of general policy were not placed at the beginning of the questionnaire, and why they were not given fuller treatment.

The Consultation web page does not offer respondents the option of writing their own contributions and sending them in. It may be objected that they are free to use the “Any other comments” boxes in the questionnaire to state their opinions but encouragement to do so is limited: for comments of any length, it is necessary to prepare the text elsewhere and paste it into the comment window, taking care to respect the questionnaire’s chapter headings.

The Consultation adds a further restriction: “Please note that replying in English will facilitate our analysis of your answers.”
This poses a considerable obstacle for non-English-speakers, and appears contrary to constant EU policy on multi-lingualism. How can all European citizens, faced with limits of this kind, be said to be free to join in the debate?

If the Consultation mechanism lacks the means to handle EU languages suitably, then the EU is not taking seriously the goal of listening to citizens, and is not funding communication and consultation procedures sufficiently.

The European Tribune is an online forum for civic debate, with a strong focus on European issues. We consider the formulation of a European energy policy a vital and urgent matter about which all European citizens should be well informed and in which they should be actively involved. Top-down policy-making runs the risk of failing to obtain genuine consent and adhesion from citizens in times of change, and to cause political apathy. In this context, we regret that the Public Consultation on the Energy Green Paper should, through its pre-decided character, counteract the desired image of truly cooperative and democratic policy-making in the European Union.

Yours, etc

On this basis, the Biofuels Consultation may have been generous in classifying us as an NGO. Any thoughts?

Otherwise... Time to register as a non-profit organisation?

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

Dear Commissioner Piebalgs,

Your Directorate is currently running a Public Consultation on the Green Paper, A European Strategy for Sustainable, Competitive and Secure Energy.

The Green Paper presents a number of major policy directions on this vital subject and it states that the Public Consultation should open up a "wide-ranging public" (p.4) and "Community-wide" (p.19) debate on them. We therefore expected the Public Consultation to further and facilitate this wide-ranging debate, in the spirit of the Report on European Governance and the White Paper on a European Communication Policy.

We were disappointed to see that, apart from a one-day public hearing in Brussels, the consultation mechanism consists of an Interactive Policy-Making online questionnaire with multiple-choice answers. What is immediately striking about it is that the policy suggestions of the Green Paper are not offered as subjects for debate, or even as polling options (with choices such as : Agree strongly, Agree, Disagree, Disagree strongly, etc...), but are stated as axiomatic.
In Section A, Question 1, for example, we read:

"In order to achieve the goal of a genuine single market, what new measures should be taken at EU and MS level?"

The respondent is not asked her or his opinion of the goal, the goal is a given.

The neutrality of the questionnaire is throughout impaired in a similar way:

Question 2 : "In order to develop a single European grid..." (pre-supposed aim)

Question 3 : "Apart from ensuring a properly functioning market..." (pre-supposed condition)

Question 4 : "How can it be ensured that all Europeans enjoy access to energy at reasonable prices?" (pre-supposed strategic goal)

Question 9 : "How can a common European energy strategy best address climate change, balancing the objectives of environmental protection, competitiveness, and security of supply?" (support for these objectives is assumed)

...and so on. Most of the questions in the questionnaire are restrictive, leading, and manipulative. The effect is to force respondents into apparent consent to the policy choices set out in the Green Paper. A polling institute which made use of questions of this kind would quickly be challenged and discredited.

Moreover, policy options other than those of the Green Paper are absent from the responses presented in the questionnaire. A major example is that, at no point, does the questionnaire offer energy demand reduction as a strategic policy option. (....?)

Only at the end of the questionnaire, in Section G, are broader policy questions broached but in a summary manner. We find it difficult to understand why these questions of general policy were not placed at the beginning of the questionnaire, and why they were not given fuller treatment.

The Consultation web page does not offer respondents the option of writing their own contributions and sending them in. It may be objected that they are free to use the "Any other comments" boxes in the questionnaire to state their opinions but encouragement to do so is limited: for comments of any length, it is necessary to prepare the text elsewhere and paste it into the comment window, taking care to respect the questionnaire's chapter headings.

The Consultation adds a further restriction: "Please note that replying in English will facilitate our analysis of your answers."
This poses a considerable obstacle for non-English-speakers, and appears contrary to constant EU policy on multi-lingualism. How can all European citizens, faced with limits of this kind, be said to be free to join in the debate?

If the Consultation mechanism lacks the means to handle EU languages suitably, then the EU is not taking seriously the goal of listening to citizens, and is not funding communication and consultation procedures sufficiently.

To sum up, the automated part of the Consultation (i.e. the IPM questionnaire), by reason of its manipulative questions and narrow range of responses, leaves room only for a form of interactivity that is guided from the top down. It appears designed to manufacture support for the Green Paper's policy options. Those Europeans who wish to exercise their right to argue for other positions than those of the Green Paper must draft their own responses, preferably in only one of the EU's twenty languages. The inequality of access to free expression in the Consultation, between supporters of the Commission's views, and supporters of alternative options, is flagrant.

The European Tribune is an open online forum for civic debate, with a strong focus on European issues. We consider the formulation of a European energy policy a vital and urgent matter about which all European citizens should be well informed and in which they should be actively involved. Top-down policy-making runs the risk of failing to obtain genuine consent and adhesion from citizens in times of change, and to cause political apathy. In this context, we regret that the Public Consultation on the Energy Green Paper should, through its pre-decided character, counteract the desired image of truly cooperative and democratic policy-making in the European Union.

Yours, etc

Converting ET discussion into action is highly commendable, and the enthusiastic PNing of the text is clearly vital for what may be a public document, or at least one that talks to these bureaucrats in terms that they accept and understand.

The part that doesn't work so well, as pointed out, is that our tools for group editing are cumbersome and time consuming. Finding a better solution is imperative. ETWiki and Colman's widget are two possibilities: what other suggestions?

And a small detail: would it help to have available a list of real ET names and addresses with which to sign documents? I presume the gnomes already have access to these. For any document, before it is forwarded out into the big wide world, there would be an individual opt-in to include your real name as co-signatory. These real names need not appear in drafts of any document posted here - but added before dispatch.

You can't be me, I'm taken