Summarize this content to 2000 words in 6 paragraphs in Arabic
\n From new coordination methods to more transparency over lobbying, here\u2019s how Ursula von der Leyen reshaped the Commission in her own image.
\n ADVERTISEMENTIt might\u2019ve gone unnoticed\u2014quietly announced in early January when many were still nursing their holiday hangovers\u2014but the European Commission has radically changed the way it operates.While she was still recovering in hospital with pneumonia, Ursula von der Leyen signed off on restructuring the executive body into \u201cproject groups\u201d.What went under the radar as a bureaucratic word shuffle will have an authentic impact on how decisions are taken, however, and cracking the code of this new structure means understanding who really wields power in Brussels.Those looking to navigate the EU power maze\u2014whether policymakers, lobbyists, or curious citizens\u2014should familiarise themselves with the new structure, or risk\u00a0knocking in vain\u00a0on the wrong doors for the next five years.The new project groups were described as a \u201cflexible tool to ensure internal coordination” by a commission spokesperson\u2014nodding at a constant bugbear at the EU executive, where commissioners and directorates-general (DGs) often clash over competencies.Formal coordination mechanisms already exist, such as the inter-service reviewing process – during which relevant directorates within the Commission review and give formal opinions on proposals in the final stages of preparation. In addition, the powerful Secretary-General, known by the fear-inducing acronym SecGen internally, is charged with ensuring the overall coherence of the Commission\u2019s work.But results have been mixed. Some DGs, like DG SANTE responsible for health and food safety, were buried under responsibilities during the last mandate\u2014tackling a pandemic while simultaneously attempting to reform pharma and tobacco laws, and the EU pesticides framework.Now, the Commission is taking a different approach\u2014one that offers revealing clues about who actually holds the reins.A reversal of powerThe philosophy behind the new structure flips the script on the previous approach. Instead of organising\u00a0topics under big general headings,\u00a0the new setup revolves around specific projects\u2014key legislations and priority dossiers.The official hierarchy remains intact, with Executive Vice Presidents (EVPs) at the top and their assigned Commissioners below, but their workflow has changed dramatically.Take the Green Deal macro-area, previously overseen by EVP Frans Timmermans. He had sweeping authority over everything from climate policy to food regulation, essentially reducing the role of former agriculture Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski to a footnote.Under the new system, agriculture falls firmly under the dedicated Commissioner Christophe Hansen and not EVP Raffaele Fitto, even though the latter is theoretically Timmermans\u2019 successor.Hansen now leads the Vision for Agriculture and Food project group, which will shape new legislation which will\u00a0aim to improve on the executive’s\u00a0much-criticised so-called ‘Farm to Fork’ strategy\u2014another Timmermans\u2019 creature.Another telling shift: Lithuanian Commissioner Andrius Kubilius, from von der Leyen\u2019s own political family, is now in charge of shaping the European Defence Union, a task that previously fell under the EU\u2019s top diplomat, Josep Borrell.That means Kubilius\u00a0rather than the EU’s current high representative Kaja Kallas\u2014better placed in the Commission’s hierarchy\u2014will spearhead NATO cooperation, European defence spending, and military capabilities.ADVERTISEMENTWhat von der Leyen wantsThe 14 newly created Project Groups are von der Leyen\u2019s answer to managing an increasingly complex and overlapping Commission portfolio structure.They have a one-year renewable mandate, but new groups can be set up as needed.For example, Maria Lu\u00eds Albuquerque, the Commissioner for Financial Services, is tasked with the European Savings and Investment Union as well as further developing the Banking Union\u2014both long-haul projects.Contacted by Euronews, a Commission spokesperson emphasised the \u201cflexible\u201d nature of the groups, with no fixed meeting schedule; it\u2019s up to the responsible Commissioner to decide when they convene.ADVERTISEMENTHowever, von der Leyen herself can swoop in and chair any meeting, should she decide a matter requires her personal touch.\u201cOf course, the President can decide to be present and run the groups, but it is more the exception,\u201d a Commission spokesperson specified.Winners and losersThe new project groups create fresh power dynamics, elevating unexpected figures while sidelining former heavyweights.Some Commissioners have clearly emerged as power players in this restructuring. French EVP St\u00e9phane S\u00e9journ\u00e9 is the most embedded in the new structure, sitting on ten of the 14 project groups. He\u2019s also a co-chair of the Clean Industrial Deal group, where he\u2019ll push for a \u201csimple and fast regulatory framework\u201d to support industry, investment, and energy access.ADVERTISEMENTBy contrast, some heavyweights from the last Commission have been sidelined. Valdis Dombrovskis, once a dominant force, has been toned down\u2014still leading the influential DG ECFIN but not chairing any project groups although joining several of them coordinating policies ranging from affordable housing to economic security.Italy\u2019s Raffaele Fitto, despite holding an EVP title, doesn\u2019t lead any group at all, a subtle but unmistakable sign of irrelevance.Meanwhile, Hungarian Commissioner Oliver V\u00e1rhelyi is the outright loser of this reshuffle, immersed in only two project groups\u2014agriculture and AI\u2014while his main dossiers, like animal welfare and health, don\u2019t even have dedicated groups.Much more transparent? Maybe notBeyond the internal power plays, another major change concerns transparency in lobbying.ADVERTISEMENTAs of 1 January, the Commission started publishing minutes of meetings between lobbyists and senior officials, expanding the disclosure requirement from 400 top officials to around 1,500.Alberto Alemanno, founder of The Good Lobby and Professor of EU Law at HEC Paris, called it a \u201cmajor policy shift in EU public integrity rules\u201d.He noted that for the first time, obligations extend beyond lobbyists to those being lobbied. \u201cBy requiring EU civil servants to disclose their meetings (including their minutes), the EU institutions acknowledge that transparency is a two-way street,\u201d he told Euronews.However, not everyone is convinced. Transparency watchdogs point out a major loophole: the Commission has up to two weeks to publish this information, and even when it does, the summaries are often vague and uninformative.ADVERTISEMENT\u201cIf this trend is the result of an intentional new approach by the Commission – publishing minutes but radically reducing the level of detail in minutes – then this is actually a step backwards for transparency,\u201d argued Olivier Hoedeman, campaigner at Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO).While the new transparency rules sound great on paper, their real impact depends on how much information is actually disclosed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Summarize this content to 2000 words in 6 paragraphs in Arabic From new coordination methods to more transparency over lobbying, here\u2019s how Ursula von der Leyen reshaped the Commission in her own image. ADVERTISEMENTIt might\u2019ve gone unnoticed\u2014quietly announced in early January when many were still nursing their holiday hangovers\u2014but the European Commission has radically changed<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":205313,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[60],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-205312","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-politics"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205312","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=205312"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205312\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":205314,"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205312\/revisions\/205314"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/205313"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=205312"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=205312"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=205312"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}