Kallas keeps options open

Photo: Peeter Langovits / Postimees

Estonia’s European commissioner Siim Kallas is pleased at having succeeded, during his time in office, to make EU view transport as important – not a threat to environment.

Siim Kallas summarises his work as EU transport commissioner, looks back at his first term as commissioner of administration, auditing and anti-corruption endeavours, and talks on national bureaucracy as opponent to all things pan-European, his options in running for MEP and returning to Estonian politics.  

Next year, your time as commissioner is up. I assume you, as other commissioners, have completed most of your work, no major initiatives in the pipelines. How would you assess the work done, starting with the current i.e. second term?

As I started out as transportation commissioner, there was only one sentence on it, in the strategic vision of the commission: an environmental problem. My first task was to restore transportation as a very important segment of the economy.

The next major issue was a concept of transportation, which contained lots of ideas and one principle, the latter turning out quite important in later discussions – mobility being a huge privilege; our aim not being restricting people’s mobility, rather to organise it in a way acceptable both environmentally and economically. 

For Estonia, your job is often associated with financing the European connection.

At the so-called hearings, as the candidates stood before the European Parliament, to a large extent I prepared my initial version myself; the team complementing and correcting it, of course. A main point of mine was: we need a special fund for financing transportation. Five minutes before I was to speak, they came and told me this needs to be cut out and cannot be mentioned, as it is not agreed. So that’s the way it went... But, by now, the financing is there for connecting Europe; and that will be a major thing I’m really proud of.

Regarding the connect Europe financing, in five-six years we will probably know how things went with it... But why not have a look at your first term now, as commissioner?

Two things stand out. One being the initiative for European transparency – sounds awfully bureaucratic, but it was important and was carried out. For instance: a part of it was the lobbyists register. It has 5,700 organisations registered in it; it works and is functioning.

The other issue, simple on the surface, was actually very complicated: namely, to have an adequate amount of people from the ten new membership countries, to work at various posts in European Commission. That was very difficult; my colleagues did not want to hear about having to take new people from Poland, Romania, Estonia, and the like.

I get the feeling you take more pride in tour first term as commissioner.

Can’t say... I definitely learned more, during my first term, about how Europe works. Transportation is different. Right now, for instance, I am proud that we succeeded to launch the railway reform – which was heavily resisted.

Why?

Because a large member state did not want at all that we deal with this.

Who? Germany?

I will not say anything...

I offered Germany as railway is of great importance, there.

It is really a very important topic for Germany and Deutsche Bahn. It has the nuance that if I come, with my locomotive, from Portugal to Estonia, via Germany, then I will pay for use of the railway; but, in Germany’s case, the money is pocketed by Deutsche Bahn i.e. my competitor. To this we do not agree; and they are fighting against abolishing this.

You are talking about concepts of transportation, but people simply think cars, trains, planes, ships. Let me simply ask: what does the EU favour and what not?

In the beginning, all of transport policy was supposed to be very neutral; even so, right now, even in my time, it has been inclined towards favouring railway. This is not much of a problem, in Estonia, but for Europe the main problem is traffic jams and the idea is to organise transportation in a way reducing the jams. In this, railway has the greatest potential. So, yes: generally speaking, it may be said that railway is favoured. The second priority would be improving the competitiveness of European aviation in global context.

Road transport is so strong – making up 70 per cent of total transportation – that it takes care of itself. No major problems there. Railway has many obstacles; in removing these, there is huge potential. Will that work or not, I do not know – national resistance being real strong. Also, railway has been heavily subsidised; and should the reforms stall, the subsidies will end sometime and railway will lose out to roads. That would be a pity.

As you pass the baton to the next commissioner, what will you tell him? Were lay the mines, the traps?

Two things. One being the surprisingly stong (Mr Kallas many times repeating the phrase «surprisingly strong» – resistance, by national bureaucracies, to everything.

The other issue is the trade unions; dealing with these is so problematic. I want to negotiate with them, but they have no control over their units. We talk things over and agree on things; a little while later, they up and organise a strike. They have no control over their subunits. Agreements will not hold.

To balance things out: regarding both terms, what was left undone? What went otherwise than you intended?

Regarding the current period: finally, we are ready with a package on advancements in pan-European air traffic control. But, to be honest, there has not been much happening with it. We have done our best, but have not achieved what we set out to do.

The first term, however – that is nothing big, rather a symbolic issue – we never succeeded in digitalising the commission work, meaning getting rid of the papers. The thing is ready, as if, but still not working. For instance, we managed to get the digital signatures going, but afterwards – lo and behold! – the paper stayed on; the papers still need to be signed as well.

Regarding the problems surrounding the next EU budget.... Simply put, the main conflict is that some will not or cannot pay more – while others demand more money.  

Yes, of course.

That’s a huge area …

It is. Where does one begin? Let’s say, I am not arguing against the sum – over €900bn over seven years – this being a political decision. Within that sum there are issues; but I can say I’m satisfied, personally.

On the other hand, taking a broader view – we are still talking about a 1984 budget model. Everything is just the same. It does seem that the next time budget cannot be done like that anymore. I think the main problem is how the budget revenue comes. In the beginning, the budget was built on three own-revenue sources. Customs revenue, a part of VAT, and some agricultural appropriations. Then, however, the member states started to steadily increase their national contributions. Now, this is the main source. The budget is built on national contributions, this being an indescribable process politically. This simply isn’t sustainable.

The solution would be some kind of a pan-European tax. Be it a percentage from VAT, or of income tax.

Let’s switch subjects, now. I hear you are running, or desire to rum, for European Parliament.

There’s been lots of talk about that, but there is still time. The talk that, at a certain moment, European Commission members will be made to run for European Parliament, for the sake of political legitimacy – right now, this is not actual. But me running, well...

Still you are not saying a definite «no», so the option is up?

Sure it is; but that’s not the only option. There are many options. I think, actually, that I will hold my options open till start of next year.

Not about to retire? You know the saying: it’s European Parliament first, President of Estonia next...

No, no retirement. But regarding these stories, you know – they say, politics is a marathon, not sprint. There’s been all these questions, but many options still lay ahead: the 2014 option, the 2015 option, the new Riigikogu, and only then comes the 2016 option.

Still, running for the European Parliament ought to be decided in a couple of months?

I’m thinking, haven’t decided yet. Not long ago, I was listening to a plenary meeting at the European Parliament... thinking: would I really want to do that job for the next five of ten years? I don’t know. Parliament, of course, is not European Commission, my home would be back in Estonia anyway. But will I want to be going back and forth...

But then, in a way it would be interesting to continue the European experience. I’m constantly pondering this, in my mind. In a way I would like that, but then it seems that no way.

Last year, the media was abuzz with the Reform Party financing scandal. But I guess that many were thinking, all the while – what would Kallas say, why doesn’t Kallas say anything? Based on rumours, people thought you were rather critical?

You know, Reform Party only has one head at a time. Should I say A, I would also have to say B, C, D etc. When my advice has been sought, I have responded; but I will not be interfering in Estonia’s political choices. But I have said that the way the financing scandal was dealt with, wasn’t the best.

Did Reform Party do a better job solving the Ojuland issue?

Honestly, I cannot comment, I really do not know the details. I am very sorry for Kristiina Ojuland in the sense that she has done such an unbelievably good job in the European Parliament.