Campaign to set record straight

Date: 19/10/1995

By Rory Watson

INFORMATION policy has traditionally been the poor cousin of European Union activity. Ambitious Commission officials prefer to make policy rather than communicate it and the institution's media machine does not have the resources that national governments enjoy.

To some extent the EU's institutions have been fighting with one hand tied behind their backs. The Union is complex, but it becomes even more confusing when the public in the member states is offered not one, but two messages: one from the Commission, the other from the European Parliament.

Nor has the EU always been best served by national governments who tend to blame unpalatable decisions on the Union and to take national credit for popular measures.

Even efforts to improve information policy can be embarrassing. The most spectacular own goal scored by the Commission came two and a half years ago with the publication of the thoughts of an independent group of experts on how to improve public understanding of the Union.

That the Commission wanted to improve matters in the aftermath of the Danish No vote on the Maastricht Treaty was understandable.

It also made clear the terms of reference for the small group of outside experts under Belgian MEP Willy De Clercq, asking it for reflections on “information and communication policy”.

But in its 52-page report, the group crossed the thin dividing line between information and propaganda and it was not just De Clercq and his colleagues who were left with egg on their faces. So too, somewhat unjustly, was the Commission.

The report did not represent the Commission's views, nor was it under any obligation to accept the ideas it contained, but it was launched at Commission headquarters and in the public's mind the proposed strategy was the Commission's.

The report provoked a storm among journalists, led by the president of the Association de la Presse Internationale Costas Verros - now a member of the Commission's spokesman's service - and ensured it a highly critical reception.

What particularly upset media sensitivities was the report's view that “newscasters and reporters must themselves be targeted, they must themselves be persuaded about European Union. It is crucial to change their opinions first, so that they subsequently become enthusiastic supporters of the cause.”

But hard lessons have been learnt and one of the strongest political messages delivered by Commission President Jacques Santer to his staff is that greater efforts must be made to explain the European Union to the general public in language it can understand.

This emphasis also means that there is now a greater awareness within all the Commission's departments of the importance of information policy. Each now has its own information officer - in addition to the spokesman's service - and meets regularly under the chairmanship of Colete Flesch, Director-General of DGX. It is now an accepted principle in the Commission that any new policy paper should include a section on information policy.

Santer has taken a personal interest in this area: the Commission president and Information Commissioner Marcelino Oreja were the joint authors of a five-page strategy paper adopted by the Commission last week on the main information priorities ahead.

Three have been selected: putting citizens first, economic and monetary union and the review of the Maastricht Treaty at next year's Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) under the heading 'Let's Build Europe Together'.

According to one senior official: “It is no accident that Oreja is the Commissioner for the IGC and information. Information is a very important dimension of the IGC. The Commission learnt a lot from Maastricht.”

It also comes as no surprise that the Commission attaches such importance to raising public awareness about a single currency and will intensify the exercise with a round table and an information campaign in January. What is surprising - and it is an indictment of the impact of earlier policies - is that the Union has been unable to project what it considers to be good news to citizens.

“One thing we have discovered is that a lot of people can understand the Union is good for their country, but they cannot relate it to their own lives. What we want to do is tell them their rights and how to ensure these are respected. We also want to listen to them,” explains one official.

The main principles now guiding the Commission's information policy are an emphasis on the public, the simplification of language and the use of new technological means of communication. The change in approach was being gradually evolved before Santer's arrival in January, but has since been given added impetus.

The earlier centralised approach, under which documents and information were drafted and provided by the Commission in Brussels for use throughout the Union, has been replaced by a new system which gives greater responsibility to its offices in the member states.

Similarly, the practice of targeting opinion formers and the political elite is being refocused to include a wider public, seen by Santer as vital as part of efforts to achieve his ambition of bringing the Union closer to its citizens.

A direct result of the new approach is the emphasis now being placed on providing EU material in public libraries in Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Ireland and the United Kingdom. Previously, the information would have been lodged only in university libraries with restricted public access.

A network of information sources is being developed, particularly outside national capitals. These include Euro-Info Centres whose main clientele are small businesses, high-street Info Points and, as in French rural areas, Carrefours de l'Europe with specific agricultural information.

The Commission is also gradually developing information partnerships with certain national governments. Its flagship venture is the Source d'Europe centre in the Défence complex in Paris, which it runs in partnership with the French government.

“It is an excellent place for the general public to go and get information and learn about the Union. It is a kind of Eiffel Tower of the 20th century. Every visitor to Paris goes there. It is very user-friendly, with films and participatory events. It is a good example of the new approach of continuing to target information at opinion formers and also directly at the public,” says one enthusiast.

A similar venture now exists in Lisbon and the possibility of setting up others is being investigated.

In addition, greater responsibility is now being given to the Commission's offices in member states, who are being encouraged to tailor information to their specific audiences - the Madrid office recently distributed documentation on regional policy not just in Spanish, but also in Catalan, Basque and Galician - and analysis of the impact of the offices is being improved.

Until recently, the head of one of them measured effectiveness by the number of phone calls received from the public. Now officials investigate the outcome of such contacts - 80&percent; of the queries are dealt with on the day - and studies are done on the way newspapers and television treat EU information.

The Commission is also embracing new technology. It is on the Internet with its own server and is building up the information to which subscribers will have access. It now regularly uses a satellite to organise direct press conferences between Brussels and the 14 other EU capitals and this week used the technology to broadcast hearings organised by the European Parliament on next year's IGC.

The venture is not the only form of cooperation between the Commission and Parliament. They already share premises in four member states and are under pressure to achieve this throughout the EU by 2000.

As the Commission uses a variety of ways to get its message across to the widest possible public, so it is trying to keep that message simple and straightforward. Gone are the days when the institution would put forward lofty ambitions.

“We want to present the case and the facts. We want to get away from jargon and have less emphasis on institutions and more on people. Nearly all policy is complex, but it should be explicable,” explains one senior official.

How successful they are and the extent to which they strike a chord with the public will only become really clear in 1997 when electorates will be asked for their verdict on the new Maastricht Treaty.