Part 2: Politics under influence
Thanks to a Greenpeace report, last week we focused on the influence of the chemical industry on lobbies working against the vote of the REACH project in Brussels.
This week, we will highlight the influence of the chemical industry on governmental organizations, principally in Germany the third producer in the world, the German chemical industry employs almost 500 000 workers.
Also, the German eco/political system is characterized by the high level of exchange between decision makers of the public and priv
ate scene.
Apart from the illustration of the high influence of financial power and the negative impact they may have on major health issues, this second part of the theme deals with the question of the frame of the decision process in Brussels and the lack of transparency they benefit from.
Last week, we pointed out number of actual lobbyist that had held important responsibilities in the Industry. The same phenomenon is observed within the political sphere. Examples are easy to find:
- Jûrgen Cretzmann, vice president of the Parliament of Rhineland-Palatinate since 2001, gets pay wages from BASF since 1973. This double employment situation has to have an effect on the vision of the Parliamentary and therefore ask if his argument against the REACH regulation were exclusively directed by the public interest.
- Karl Kress is also member of the State Parliament and has also received money from Bayer…
But also within the European Parliament committees involved in REACH: 6 out of the 10 committees are led by German linked to the Chemical industry acting as rappoteurs (Hartmut Nassauer for instance, assisted directly an expert from the German chemical industry federation).
Names for names we have many, but the question at stake is since it is barely impossible and not necessarily welcome to impeach national or European institutions to benefit from experts, how should their influence be regulated? The striking impression we have is the lack of awareness of the decision makers on the background of their “advisers”.
The second observation made through the analysis of the REACH project is the little influence of opposite voices in these institutions to counterbalance these points of views (exception made of the Green Party).
Finally I would like to underline that if we focus on the REACH project for all the irrelevance it reveals, we are not alone. More then the impact REACH could have on American chemical industry, the American lobbyist in Brussels were to frein as much as possible the project to impeach a possible will of the American social society to follow the European tack.
This week, we will highlight the influence of the chemical industry on governmental organizations, principally in Germany the third producer in the world, the German chemical industry employs almost 500 000 workers.
Also, the German eco/political system is characterized by the high level of exchange between decision makers of the public and priv
ate scene.Apart from the illustration of the high influence of financial power and the negative impact they may have on major health issues, this second part of the theme deals with the question of the frame of the decision process in Brussels and the lack of transparency they benefit from.
Last week, we pointed out number of actual lobbyist that had held important responsibilities in the Industry. The same phenomenon is observed within the political sphere. Examples are easy to find:
- Jûrgen Cretzmann, vice president of the Parliament of Rhineland-Palatinate since 2001, gets pay wages from BASF since 1973. This double employment situation has to have an effect on the vision of the Parliamentary and therefore ask if his argument against the REACH regulation were exclusively directed by the public interest.
- Karl Kress is also member of the State Parliament and has also received money from Bayer…
But also within the European Parliament committees involved in REACH: 6 out of the 10 committees are led by German linked to the Chemical industry acting as rappoteurs (Hartmut Nassauer for instance, assisted directly an expert from the German chemical industry federation).
Names for names we have many, but the question at stake is since it is barely impossible and not necessarily welcome to impeach national or European institutions to benefit from experts, how should their influence be regulated? The striking impression we have is the lack of awareness of the decision makers on the background of their “advisers”.
The second observation made through the analysis of the REACH project is the little influence of opposite voices in these institutions to counterbalance these points of views (exception made of the Green Party).
Finally I would like to underline that if we focus on the REACH project for all the irrelevance it reveals, we are not alone. More then the impact REACH could have on American chemical industry, the American lobbyist in Brussels were to frein as much as possible the project to impeach a possible will of the American social society to follow the European tack.