European Business Summit 2004
Corporate Europe Observatory - 23.03.2004 18:40
European Business Summit 2004
Op het menu: stropdassen, powerpoints en goede wijn...
"Once again the EBS succeeded in creating and developing strong and more harmonious links between political decision makers and business leaders." Dit staat juichend op de website van de European Business Summit, een tweejaarlijkse gebeurtenis die op 11 en 12 maart plaats vond in, natuurlijk, Brussel. Thema dit keer was "Research and Innovation “ a European strategy for more growth and jobs. Onderwerpen waren onder meer biotechnology, intellectueel eigendom, de wapenindustrie en nanotechnologie.(Zie verder www.ebsummit.org). Corporate Europe Observatory was erbij en doet verslag.
European Business Summit 2004
Op het menu: stropdassen, powerpoints en goede wijn...
"Once again the EBS succeeded in creating and developing strong and more harmonious links between political decision makers and business leaders." Dit staat juichend op de website van de European Business Summit, een tweejaarlijkse gebeurtenis die op 11 en 12 maart plaats vond in, natuurlijk, Brussel. Thema dit keer was "Research and Innovation “ a European strategy for more growth and jobs. Onderwerpen waren onder meer biotechnology, intellectueel eigendom, de wapenindustrie en nanotechnologie.(Zie verder www.ebsummit.org). Corporate Europe Observatory was erbij en doet verslag.
To start with, a little comparison with the EBS in 2002. In 2002,
the EBS took place in a huge congress centre in the norh of Brussels,
there were lots of information booths and many parallel sessions. The
size but relativelky shabby cicrumstances made me think of the EBS
2002 as a discount-Davos. This one was in the Sheraton, very
luxurious, but smaller, at the most two sessions taking place at the
same time and very few info booths. A look at the participants list
(EBS says over 1,000, it felt like less) shows that this is the
proletariat of European business getting together: there are hardly
any CEOs or other higher-level management. Belgian business is
massively over-represented. The theme was "Research and innovation",
reflecting the fact that DG Research was heavily involved. They
suggested the theme and probably paid a large part of the expenses.
Food Safety
The very first session of the EBS 2004 was titled “Technologies for better and safer food: Where can Europe take the lead?”. The following questions were supposed to be addressed:
What are society’s major “food safety” challenges?
How can biotechnology meet these challenges?
How to build public trust in biotechnology / What policies are required to exploit the research opportunities?
Another clear example of the current strategy to counter every argument against biotechnology (environment, the South, health) by making it sound like not just neutral or harmless to the problem, but even having the potential to make a positive difference. Although the term ‘biotechnology’ was used, therefore including non- GM technologies like DNA analysis, the frequent mentioning of ‘public trust’ and ‘risk perception’ could only be referring to genetically modified foods. The issue that these foods could pose new food safety problems was clearly not meant to be discussed. On the other hand, not one concrete example of a ‘superiorly safe’ type of GM food was given.
Overall, the session was rather boring. Speakers were Christian Patermann (Director Biotechnology, agriculture and food of DG Research); Dominique Taeymans (Confederation of the Food and Drink Industries of the EU – CIAA); Ciaran Meghen (Identigen); Jim Murray (The European Consumers’ Organisation BEUC); and moderator Jo Bury (Flanders Interuniversity Institute for Biotechnology, VIB). They stressed how important economically the food and drink industry is, counting for some 13 % of EU GDP, and for 11% in terms of employment. In addition, Europe was said to be leading in the global food industry in diversity as well as in availability of food products. Facing increasing competition on the world market, innovation was seen as crucial to keep this sector competitive.
Food, we learned, was never as safe as today. But, as was highlighted in the written conclusions, “new risks are emerging and the difference between actual and perceived risk is becoming increasingly important”. In this respect, it is worth taking a look at Commissioner Byrne’s speech on the occasion of a workshop on risk perception, held in Brussels last December. There he says: “Many evaluations and studies have been carried out. All of these have shown that there is no risk to consumers from eating GM products. Moreover, all GM substances authorised for use in the EU have undergone rigorous scientific evaluations before being put into use. Unfortunately many misunderstandings related to risk perception remain among European consumers. We need to calm the debate about GMOs. Consumers need to be informed by scientific facts.”
The emphasis on biotechnology in this session was really remarkable. Of course, technology and innovation were the main theme and therefore new technologies in food had to be promoted. However, the experts on the panel mentioned several times that the main threats to food safety still come from microbiological and chemical contamination. The guy from Identigen explained the use of biotechnology for the traceability of food stuffs through DNA analysis. In this way, for example meat can be traced to its origin, and foods can be tested for their GM content. But then of course, DNA analysis may be a form of biotechnology, it has nothing to do with GM foods! At least the guy of the BEUC agreed with the over-emphasis on biotechnology. He mentioned the problems created by it, like the co-existence of GM and non-GM farming.
In the entire session, intensive farming practices were not mentioned once as being the main cause of current food safety problems. Instead, the EU enlargement process bringing the produce of 10 million small farmers on the internal market was mentioned by Chris Pattern as one of the ‘new challenges’.
The advice for EU policy makers was the usual. It should be based on ‘sound science’ whereas so far, policy making has been ‘too emotional’, according to the CIAA. Also, it should be EU policy to actively start “communication towards consumers fortifying confidence in science and technology”. Again, it is clear that one was here not speaking so much of food safety, but of GM food.
Nanotechnology
A much better attended session, which sometimes turned even kind of lively, was dedicated to nanotechnology. A not so new technology involving creating new products involving ‘nano particles’, particles designed on the atomic level. The possibilities for application vary from electronics to environmental restoration, and from energy storage to entertainment. Nanotechnology is already an important factor in the traditional chip industry. Soon available will be ‘nanotubes’, very small tubes created out of nano-particles. These tubes are 100 times stronger than steel and have a better conductivity than copper. Such tubes will be increasingly used together with traditional materials to enhance their physical characteristics. Another application is in the display industry, where nano-technology is able to make screens which can be read as easily as traditional papers.
Environmental guru Lucas Reijnders of the University of Amsterdam was the only one to bring in some critical points, be it very moderately. Research on the effects of inhalation of nanoparticles has shown damage to the human longs, for example. Stories about self-replicating robots were dismissed as ‘ridiculous’, and caused a rare wave of laughter through the audience.
It was warned that US government investment in nanotechnology is much greater than in the EU. And as the question is not if nanotechnology will become big business, but where, “Europe must invest now in creating the right infrastructure for a competitive nanotech R&D system in order to keep a part of the nanotech pie at this side of the ocean”.
Energy: let's go for nukes again!
The session called "Energising economic growth with better energy"
had a DG Research representative outlining the challenges of energy
constraints and propagating nuclear energy, fusion and carbon
sequestration (EU supports the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum
and funds research such as Sleipner project). A dude from the
renewable energy industry presented the growh of his sector, followed
by Commission Wallstrom who talked about climate change. She kind of
had to after the new offensive from UNICE an others to get the EU's
Kyoto commitment re-evaluated because of the presumed competitiveness
impacts (especially after Russia is dragging its feet). Wallstrom did
a good job, although her emphasis on emissions trading and other
business opportunities is disappointing. The last speaker was Jean-
Claude Steffens, a pretty rude Director environment and Innovation at
Suez-Tracetebel. He was not impressed by existing govenment policies,
nor by wind energy and other subsidised renewables, and highlighted
emissions trading (if in a business-friendly format) and nuclear
energy (which he claimed is the cheapest energy) as the way forward.
How technology can help the environment
The session titled "Environmental technologies: how to exert leverage
on Europe's leadership worldwide" had a Commission representative,
Tony Long (WWF) as well as Colin Humphris from CEFIC and Diane
d'Arras from Suez Environnement as speakers. The Commission dude
introduced the European Technology Action Plan (ETAP), which is based
on Lisbon goals and supports R&D as well as green investments in
developing countries
( http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/etap). I wonder whether
Suez gets any money out of that pot! Mrs. d'Arras, who worked with
Suez on the Buenos Aires privatisation, was a hopeless speaker and
I'm not sure whether I understood her right. If I did, she expressed
her company's frustration with the diversity of local markets and
local environmental policies, which tends to give local technologybe
an advantage over Suez. She was happy with the EU which is developing
common regulations and one single market. CEFIC's Colin Humphris
started out boasting of the chemical industry having decoupled
economic growth from energy use and pollution, through Reponsible
Care. He then moved on to complain about the 'cummulative effect' of
over 500 pieces of environmental legislation in the EU and the fact
that registering a new chemical in the EU costs 3 times more an takes
much longer than in the US. Tony Long gave a basic presentation on
the reality of climate change and argued that EU regulations (which
are very flexible, he stressed) will help European business adapt and
get a competitive advantage from adjusting early.
Weapon Industry
Much more interesting was the session on the competitiveness of the
Transatlantic defence industry (titled "Defence and security: how to
work together for a secure Europe), which was basically dealing with
the question of how to get EU military spending up to US-levels...
The session was co-chaired by NATO's Jamie Shea (remember from the
Kosovo war?) and Giles Merrit of the New Defence Agenda, a fairly new
thinktank based in Brussels, funded by US and EU-based arms producers
(membership 25,000 euro upwards). Shea introduced NDA as "the leading
forum in Brussels brining together NATO, EU and other partners".
Merrit in his introduction expressed his worries about whether the UK
would reduce defence expenses, as the UK and France are the only EU
countries that "have their defence act together". Commissioner
Vitorino argued that the bombs in Madrid show how the distinction
between internal security and defence is disappearing. He announced
that biometric identifyers (digital photos and fingerprints) will be
introduced in passports, visas, etc. This will result in the largest
database in the world, interoperational with the US system (under the
Homeland Security Act).
Rainer Hertrich of EU arms producer EADS also stressed the link
between and the need to reinforce defence and civil security. He
suggested strenghtening civil/security/defence networks and links and
"use transnational industry as a facilitator" in this process.
Hertrich also outlined the various EU programmes for funding security
and defence industries, while complaining that there is "not yet a
structured EU defence market". Scott Harris, European director of
Lockheed Martin, was introduced by Shea as a firm supporter of the
New Defence Agenda. Harris outlined the different levels of spending
and R&d in arms between the EU and the US (US is roughly double). He
complained about the lack of resources and budgets and suggested
accelerating the creation of an integrated EU-US marketplace for
arms. Asked by a journalist whether it would be an option to loosen
the EU's Stability Pact to free up funds, Harris responded that "the
resources are a matter of political choice, the money is there".
Merrit closed the session with some advice for the defence industry .
Instead of talking about costs, they should talk about 'the defence
economy' to highlight the activity and the jobs coming from the
sector. In order to improve its image and getting away from the
merchants of death reputation, the sector should stop making macho
ads with missiles and fighter planes. They should adopt civil society
language, describe themselves as "protecting civil society and the
freedom of citizens".
Back to NDA and Merrit, who is a Brusels lobbying veteran, a real
spider in the power web who did the Philip Morris Institute for
Public Policy Research in the '90ies, was/is Director of Forum
Europe, Secretary general of Friends of Europe, set up an outfit
called "Fairer World Forum" (in response to the globalisation
debate), is part of the ASEAN Europe Business Network, editor of the
quarterly Humanitarian Affairs Review, etc. NDA was set up by Forum
Europe (which Merrit was the director of), with whom they still share
a building (Bibliotheque Solvay, in the park right next to the
European Parliament). http://www.newdefenceagenda.org/
On to the Spring Summit
Finally, the closing plenary, around 500 suits and a dozen of women
in the big hall of the Sheraton hotel, first speaker is Philippe de
Buck, who heads UNICE. He talked about the key role of the Lisbon
targets and threw in a couple of concrete demands (lowering corporate
taxes & linking business and universities) as examples of 'nourishing
entrepeneurship". To make the next Commission focus even more on
competitiveness, UNICE wants a new Commission vice-president for
competitiveness. De Buck saw public opinion as a major problem, how
to "change the mindset so people are less risk-adverse"? GMOs are an
example, said De Buck, in the US there isn't even a debate on GMOs.
The UNICE boss stressed the need to "deal with Kyoto and REACH".
Kyoto needs to be re-evaluated, through a business impact assessment,
said De buck, who was pleased that the EU's Competitiveness Council
the previous day had embraced UNICE's demand for such impact
assessments. The recommendations of the Competitiveness Council for
the EU Spring summit (end of March) includes:
- "the need to pursue an integrated approach to ensure coherence
across all Community activities which would impact business and
industry;
- "the importance of impact assessment;" [Results of the
Competitiveness Council of Ministers, Brussels, 11th March 2004
Internal Market, Enterprise and Consumer Protection issues]
Then came Baron Daniel Janssen (ERT), indeed every inch an
aristocrat. His speech started with portraying a horror scenario of
worsening EU competitiveness and increasing pressures from India,
China and re-emerging Japan, "who respond faster to change". The EU,
Janssen warns, is now also losing high added value jobs to skilled
low-cost competitors. Jansen blames governments for making a negative
difference and mentions "the failing implementation in innovative
sectors like biotech" as a point in case. The ERT's recepy, Janssen
outlines, includes "impact assessments to see if new policies are pro-
competitive", deregulation and last but not least, "decision-making
for competitiveness". The slowness in EU decision-making is "a very
annoying situation", said Janssen, who called for an "effective
Europe". He echoed UNICE's call for a Competitiveness Commissioner
and stressed that the upcoming EU constitution should include far
more majority voting, to prevent that 2-3 countries can block
decisions. Janssen saw 2004 as the year of "turnaround and renewal"
for Europe.
Mary Harney, Irish minister for Enterprise and Trade, gave a speech
that shows just how absurdly competitiveness-obsessed governments
have become. Before endorsing almost every recommendations outlined
by the previous business speakers, Harney stressed that Europeans
"don't need new regulation", but a more competitive attitude. She
fully embraced the proposed business impact assessments: "let us look
at all legislation, also existing, to see 'do we need it, if so how
much of it'?". "Lisbon is the only agenda" and "regulations have to
be competitiveness-proof", said Harney. "Lisbon is about jobs",
claimed Harney, whereas in reality the deregulation and
liberalisation agenda outlined in Lisbon also destroys many jobs. New
jobs created are in many cases of lower quality and more insecure.
Harney ended her speech pledging to "ensure that the agenda of
business is taken on board by the EU's Council on competitiveness",
which she chairs. Harney got an overwhelming applaus from the
assembled business representatives.
 E-Mail: ceo@corporateeurope.org  Website: http://www.corporateeurope.org
|
