| Author (Person) | Thomson, Ian |
|---|---|
| Publisher | ProQuest Information and Learning |
| Series Title | In Focus |
| Series Details | 1.7.01 |
| Publication Date | 01/07/2001 |
| Content Type | News, Overview, Topic Guide | In Focus |
|
On 27 June 2001 the European Commission adopted a Communication proposing a new framework for co-operation on activities concerning the information and communication policy of the European Union (COM (2001)354 final). [Summary: IP/01/910] In addition, on 25 June 2001 the Council of the European Union adopted Conclusions on Openness, Transparency and Good Administrative Behaviour and a Declaration on public access to documents [PRES/01/250] Of further interest in this context was a thoughtful speech 'Transparency as a fundamental principle of the European Union' given by the European Ombudsman on the 19 June 2001 [SPEECH], and the public announcement of the launch of the EUR-LEX portal - a 'one-stop shop' for accessing EU law - on the 28 June 2001 [IP/01/915] The European Commission is expected to adopt soon two further Communications on the eCommission, and the future development of EUROPA., and its White Paper on European governance. Background On the 2 June 1992 the people of Denmark voted against ratifying the Treaty of Maastricht in a referendum. In the debate that followed the issue of how effectively the EU informs and communicates has become a significant political question, discussed at the highest levels of the European Union, and accorded significant time and financial resources. Nine years later, on the 7 June 2001 the people of Ireland voted against ratifying the Treaty of Nice in a referendum. German newspaper Die Welt said
Similarly, Le Figaro in France criticised the 'communications shortcomings' of EU Institutions, a lack of transparancy and the increasing paralysis engulfing the traditional decision-making mechanisms in the Union. Portugal's Publico argued that the referendum result represented a warning: Europe must confront the 'persistent apathy' of its citizens and face up to growing mistrust and scepticism in many countries. In the reaction to the referendum in Ireland a Joint Statement from the Swedish Prime Minister, Göran Persson, as President of the European Council, and European Commission President, Romano Prodi, on the 8 June 2001 said:
Over the last few years Eurobarometer public opinion polls show declining numbers of people in most EU Member States approve or are enthusiastic about their membership of the European Union. Some suggest that European integration has lost popular support and has become primarily a project of the political and business elites. On the big issues of the moment - the introduction of the single currency and enlargement of the EU - there is little grassroots enthusiasm, although there are, of course, variations between one country and another. The Benelux Memorandum on the Future of Europe issued in June 2001 says:
During the summer of 2001 the European Commission is expected to adopt three separate Communications:
In addition, the European Commission is expected to adopt in July 2001 its much heralded White Paper on European Governance, September 2001. The object of the White Paper is to suggest ways to:
In a speech made by Romano Prodi, the European Commission President, in January 2001, he said:
He went on to say:
This is the current context for the on-going debate on the information and communication policiy of the European Union. In Focus continues below with more detailed information divided into the following sections:
Current EU information apparatus The EU has had from the start of the post-war European integration process an extensive information apparatus, that is, a range of initiatives to fulfil its information and communication policy objectives. Information policy is clearly not simply about issuing booklets and other publications about the activities of the European Union. Some of the key points to make:
It is considered vital by all sides that the citizens and others of both existing Member States and the applicant countries are kept informed:
It is necessary to recognise that in the applicant countries as citizens and others begin to recognise the real implications of membership, as countries have to adjust in a short time to EU laws and the full force of competition, that support for the idea of EU membership might decline. In the long run there may be definite economic advantages in EU membership, while the concept of uniting Europe is a powerful one, but in the short-term membership will bring a lot of disruption. The need for an impartial, effective and targetted information campaign is clearly vital. This is equally true in the existing Member States. Governments have been able to take the principled decision that the EU should enlarge, but they need to
In line with the European Commission's belief that information responsibilities should be shared between the EU level and national, regional and local governments and agencies the information campaign has been decentralised. This is because it is argued that local agencies have a better knowledge of local circumstances, local sensitivities and local issues than Brussels. Thus, the European Commission announced in May 2000 a communication strategy for enlargement to operate from 2000 until 2006 in both the Member States and the candidate countries (IP/00/464). The budget for this programme is approximately €150m, approximately € 60m to be spent in the candidiate countries, €60m in the Member States and €30m directly from Brussels. Responsibility for devising and implementing the campaigns is being shared between the European Commission and national, regional and local agencies. Opinion leaders are seen to be the main targets of the programme such as political, business and labour leaders, farmers, professional associations, the media, universities, teachers, religious bodies etc.
The above is a very brief overview of the main existing European information and communication initiatives. There are others. Whether all these activities add up to an effective and adequate information and communication policy has been increasingly called into question. There is evidence that the results are mixed. Alongside many useful information products and services, there have been instances of overlap between various initiatives, with unclear objectives, little focus or effective management, and a lack of external evaluation In addition, some of the information activities of the EU Institutions, can have the effect of affecting the information activities of some of the other organisations involved in information dissemination activities, such as NGOs and commercial publishers. Citizen, consumer and environmental groups, in particular, have complained that while they have been encouraged (and even financially assisted) to disseminate information about EU activities to their target groups, the European Commission has increasingly put more resources into added-value information sources and activities of its own in competition. There is also an ongoing confusion between the complementary but differing objectives and perspectives of creating effective information tools and the much broader perspective of ensuring effective communication between the EU and its citizens. For example, creating a free access legislative information such as EUR-LEX on the web is an excellent initiative, but it will hardly fulfil its primary objective of bring the European citizen closer to the EU. The role of information in the European Union - Openness and transparency Let us step back a little and look more broadly at the role of information in the European Union and the question of openness and transparency... First of all, back to basic principles: why does the EU have an information policy?
As the years go by and there is more European Union legislation - and more countries in the EU - there is a big increase in the numbers of individuals and organisations who need specific information about EU laws and policies in their work, or as a consumer, or in education etc.
It is a fairly obvious but legitimate point to make that in a democratic society any organisation, which takes decisions which affect individuals and organisations within its boundaries has a duty to inform those affected by the decisions. The European Union goes further than any other international organisation in the direct impact its policies and laws have on its Member States, on organisations and individuals within the Member States and, indeed, on other countries as well. It is also a relatively new and innovative organisation which citizens do not perhaps understand or feel any loyalty towards: it is striving for democratic legitimacy. For this reason the EU has always recognised that it has a responsibility to make known and explain its purpose, laws, and policies through extensive information activities. European citizens have a right to know what is happening in the European Union and to feel 'involved'. Public opinion surveys do show - in both Member States and applicant countries - lessening enthusiasm for the European Union. This is one of the contexts for the consultataive White Paper on Governance in the European Union, due in July 2001. The Paper will lay out a set of recommendations on how to enhance democracy in Europe and increase the legitimacy of the institutions. Some people go onto argue that the way how decisions are taken in society is changing fundamentally, and that governments generally need to recognise that they are only one element in how society develops, that there are many other stakeholders and other factors involved in this process. Governance is a complex concept that cannot be explained just in a few words (it will be more fully in a separate In Focus feature), but what comes out when you read the background documents the European Commission has issued whilst preparing its White Paper on European Governance, is the need to find ways to effectively involve European citizens and stakeholders in what is happening in the EU: because, it is argued, only then will people understand and accept the EU - and you will also get better decisions. How do you involve citizens and stakeholders? Clearly, information and communication is part of the process.
As the debate has turned in the EU to the need to communicate with and involve European citizens and stakeholders in the actions of the EU Institutions, the question has been asked: is the EU an open and transparent organisation. The Treaty of Amsterdam, agreed in June 1997, included an article which said:
There are those who argue that the EU is a relatively open organisation. It is argued that Brussels has one of the most extensive and sophisticated press corps in the world and has supplanted Washington as the lobbying capital of the world. A former Belgian diplomat has written in 2000 that: 'The truth is that virtually everything is known' (Philippe de Schoutheete, The case for Europe, Lynne Reider, 2000) Nevertheless, the last few years has seen increasing criticism from civil liberties', consumer and environmental groups about a lack of openness in EU policy-making. If you read the second report of the Committee of Independent Experts on the reform of the European Commission issued on 10 September 1999 it says in Chapter Seven that one of the features which most concerns it is:
Alongside that criticism, it is said that the ever increasing complexity of the EU policy-making process is also a factor in making the EU a non-transparent organisation, and distancing the citizen. For example, the whole issue of comitology, whereby the EU maintains many hundreds of advisory, management, and regulatory committees, which play an important role in EU policy-making, but which are virtually unknown by the outside public. Language will always be challenge in the EU.
Nevertheless, the question of Access to documents has become the key focal issue in the openness debate. The accession of Sweden and Finland in 1995 was important in this debate as these Scandinavian countries, in particular, have alternative traditions of public policy-making and administration which challenge traditional EU policy styles, particularly in the question of 'access to documents'. In those countries citizens have a fundamental constitutional right of access to all documents, as a way of holding policy-makers democratically acccountable There have been a number of legal challenges in the past few years to the European Court of Justice and the European Ombudsman relating, in particular, to questions of access to documents from the Council of the European Union and the European Commission. Through the 1990s many of the EU Institutions and agencies adopted codes of conduct laying down rules of access to their documents. However, a significant step forward came with the Treaty of Amsterdam, which stated that within two years of the Treaty coming into force (which it did in May 1999) the EU must adopt a Regulation legally enshrinig the right of citizens to accessing the documents of the Council, Commission and European Parliament. In January 2000 the European Commission introduced a proposal for a Regulation to formally enshrine the right of citizens to access to EU documents from the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council, as it was required to do under Article 255 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. The details of the proposal have raised considerable debate and even controversy, with criticism of the proposal from such groups as the European Federation of Journalists, the European Environmental Bureau, civil liberties' and human rights groups such as Statewatch, and the European Ombudsman. This debate was further fuelled by the controversial adoption in August 2000 of a Council Decision, which relates to the rights of citizens to access to EU documents in the area of foreign, security and military matters. The European Parliament approved on the 3 May 2001 the compromise agreement made between the European Commission, the Council of the European Union and representatives of the European Parliament on the proposed Regulation on public access to documents. The proposal has now been formally adopted as Regulation(EC) 1049/2001 and will enter into force in December 2001 (although the Institutions will have another six months to set up document registers as required by the Regulation). By the agreement EU citizens will have a right of access to all the documents of the EU Institutions with certain exceptions in the fields of public security, defence and military matters, international relations and financial, monetary or economic policy. The Regulation has divided opinion, but it is, nevertheless, a significant milestone in the journey to making the EU a more open and transparent organisation. On the 25 June 2001 the Council of the European Union adopted a Declaration on public access to documents, which said that other EU Institutions and agencies would be encouraged or expected to adopt procedures similar to those outlined in the Regulation for the European Parliament, Council of the European Union and European Commission. Further information on the Access to Documents Regulation can be seen in a separate In Focus feature
One of the fundamental principles of 'open government is that citizens have easy access to the laws that affect them. Within the context of the openness and transparency debate in the EU various initiatives have taken place:
Democratic openness v operational efficiency Overall, the subject of opening up the EU so that citizens feel involved, consulted and able to participate and understand the way the Union is developing continues to concern European politicians and officials. It is clear there are no easy answers to the question of effectively communicating information and messages about the EU to its citizens and others. As mentioned above that although there is a link between information and communication, there is also a clear distinction between informing people and communicating a message. Providing more information and providing it effectively does not necessarily make European citizens more enthusiastic about the EU. This is a phenomenon that has appeared in some of the countries applying to join the EU: where initial generalised enthusiasm for joining the EU has been somewhat lessened or reduced as information is provided which makes it clearer to citizens and other groups the detailed implications of what membership of the EU entails. The real challenge in the debate about openness and transparency is to reconcile the needs for democratic openness with the need for operational efficiency in a unique international organisation comprising (at present) fifteen sovereign Member States (and in the future up to thirty). Within these countries there are very different traditions relating to these questions. At the centre of the Scandinavian tradition (and maybe also the Dutch tradition) of transparency (transparency through public access) are rules concerning extensive public access to official documents, files and registers which is perceived as an important means of holding public policy-makers accountable. There are other Member States who do not feel comfortable with that tradition, while the EU approach to transparency (transparency through communication) so far has been primarily directed at keeping the public informed of on-going activities by providing 'processed' information. Two quotations from 1999 illustrate this tension:
The key concepts of EU information and communications policy as outlined in the 2001 Communications The June 2001 Communication on information and communication policy (ICP) sets out to lay down a framework for a debate on the issues, rather than suggest solutions: in essence it describes the current situation in terms of information and communication instruments. It suggests that at the heart of ICP is the 'obligation to bring Europe closer to its citizens'. It recognises the difficulties 'a European Public does not exist today for most purposes'.
The EU Institutions recognise the need to share with other organisations and agencies (or 'stakeholders') the responsibility of providing information about the EU: this embraces initiatives involving national, regional, local and sectoral organisations. The rationale is that these organisations have a better knowledge of local or special interests than Brussels, and so can tailor their information campaign more effectively. As the June 2001 Communication says the EU should be 'around the corner, not a foreign policy issue' Who should be the organisations at lower levels?. Primarily, it means public organisations - such as national, regional and local organisations that have an information responsibility, including governments, libraries, associations, and sectoral organisations such as professional association and NGOs. Commercial organisations such as publishers and the media also should play a major role. For example, the European Commission has been supporting for a number of years the European Union Publishers Forum. Recognising the complex nature of the EU, the European Commission has supported various training initiatives for journalists in European issues through organisations such as the European Journalism Centre and the European Journalists' Association. The Commission has substantially developed its policy of decentralised information provision through its relays and networks to ensure that most key sectors of society can find out what is happening in the EU in places and in ways appropriate to their needs. The Communication of June 2001 proposes a further expansion of relays such as Info Points and Carrefours to ensure an even and total regional coverage. In addition, the Communication also recommends the creation of a comprehensive network of National Centres such as Sources d'Europe in Paris and the Jacques Delors Information Centre in Lisbon. A National Centre for European Information and Documentation (CIDE) has just opened in Rome. The Communication does acknowledge that Member States have different traditions and a national centre will not always be appropriate. Civil Society groups also have an important role to play in stimulating a more informed public debate, and in defining the issues that confront Europe. Groups such as NGOs and thinktanks can be very impirtant in disseminating information and messages. However, there are tensions here. NGOs and thinktanks cannot be seen as EU propagandists and yet often require EU funding in one form or another to maintain information initiatives. A policy of decentralisation does not mean that the European Commission and the other EU Institutions are abdicating their information and communication responsibilities; rather it is recognising the reality that the EU Institutions cannot satisfy all the increasing needs for information about its activities and should concentrate resources on
The decentralisation of European information and communication initiatives would seem a pragmatic and logical step to take, but it should be noted that some people within the EU Institutions have expressed fears that the 're-nationalisation' of EU information policy is a dangerous step. The June 2001 Communications put forward the possibility of creating an advisory body on Information and Communication comprising representatives of the Institutions, the Member States, and with the further possibility of co-opting external advisers and specialists for specific purposes.
A second key concept in the EU information and communication strategy can be called Interactive communication. Communication should be seen as a two way process or an 'interactive' process: yes, Brussels needs to disseminate information about what it is doing and proposing, but it also needs to receive information - in other words, it needs to listen. Why? Two reasons:
How does 'interactive communication' work in practice? Some examples include:
In April 2001 the European Commission issued a document called 'Interactive policy making', which discusses the need for the European Commission to establish appropriate consultation and feedback mechanisms using the internet. This will enable the European Commission to receive continuous access to the opinions and experiences of economic operators and citizens, and thereby enhance the Commission's ability to assess the impact of its policies (or the absence of them) on the ground; to evaluate proposals for new actions, to respond rapidly and in a targeted manner to consumer, citizen and business demand, and thus to make policy-making more inclusive. It is envisaged that the consultation can take two lines:
The third key concept of today's EU information policy is for more inter-institutional co-operation on information matters, ie. for more joint information and co-operation between the various EU Institutions (in particular, between the European Commission, European Parliament and the Council of the European Union). One could also say, for more co-operation between departments within the European Commission. It can sometimes surprise people to hear that each Institution within the EU - the European Commission, the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament, being the main ones - have operated separate information policies over the years. Under pressure from the European Parliament there has been calls for much more co-operation between the Institutions in disseminating information and messages. There is a much greater attempt for the EU Institutions to cooperate with each other on information matters: senior officials from the European Commission and European Parliament have met for a number of years in the Inter-Institutional Group on Information (IGI). Initially, the brief of the group was to deal specifically with the jointly administered Priority Information Campaigns, but its brief has now been widened to include all information and communication matters. The June 2001 Communication suggest greater co-operation with the Council of the European Union and with other EU Institutions and bodies. In some Member States the Representations of the European Commission and European Parliament External Offices share a common building. The June 2001 Communication talks about the need for 'a high degree of local co-ordination, exchange of information and co-operation'. The Citizens' First initiative is a joint project. There has been talk of having a joint Press Centre and an Interinstitutional Library in Brussels. Thus, while there been some progress in coordinating information initiatives, it is also the case that not everyone thinks that interinstitutional cooperation is the appropriate strategy. It is argued that each Institution in the EU has its own, sometimes competitive, role and thus should pursue an independent information strategy. The June 2001 Communication acknowledges this tension by stressing that while a key objective is 'to set up a new framework for co-operation on information and communication', nevertheless, all the Institutions will 'retain their autonomy as regards political information...and getting their own priorities across'.
A fourth trend that has been suggested by the European Commission as the way forward for EU information policy is for the EU to hand over the detailed day-to-day management of information initiatives to external agencies and organisations: this process is part of a wider trend called 'externalisation'. The June 2001 Communication suggests consideration should be given to the creation of an 'inter-institutional information agency' In addition to the possibility of using external agencies to manage day-to-day activities, some professional communication experts have more controversially suggested that tried and tested communication techniques in the areas of customer relations management (CRM), such as brand or identity building and influence shaping should be considered. Should the EU be using more the the media, public relations, commercial communications, advertising and broadcasting sectors? Others have suggested that what is needed is more personnel dealing with information and communications activities within the EU Institutions. Many outsiders also argue that external or objective evaluation of EU information initiatives should always take place.
A fifth trend is a very obvious one - an increasing emphasis on the electronic dissemination of information. Of course, this has occurred because of the development of the internet, but there are other reasons as well.
The further substantial development of EUROPA, the EU web services, are proposed in the European Commission's Communication 'Towards the e-Commission: Europa 2nd Generation'. This follows on from the Commission's White Paper on Reform of March 2000, which said that
The 2001 Communication on EUROPA says says that the three principal strands of the eCommission initiative are:
EUROPA is a fundamental part of the process to facilitate the last two of these strands. Each day there are some 1.5m visits to its constituent documents and these are doubling every year. The site currently consists of 1.5m documents, plus the contents of sixty databases, which each can contain several hundred thousand documents. EUROPA should be used for three purposes:
The key development that the user of the service will see is the sustained development of portals. The objective is to integrate through a single entry point a complete range of information and services about an organisation, or policy, or type of information, or intended for a particular audience. Each of these portals might integrate information scattered among various Directorate Generals of the European Commission, and maybe from the other Institutions as well. Examples of some of these new-style portals already exist, other are proposed: Thematic portals Portals by audience Portals by service
The Communication discusses the need for strong central leadership to ensure that all Commission departments fully participate in these developments and maintain common standards of presentation.. In the future electronic publishing via the web and digital network will always be the first format for publishing: other formats such as paper and CD-ROM should be derived from the primary format. Printing on request will become the norm for paper publications. EUROPA will develop its mechanisms to facilitate interactive communication such as email contact points, consultation and feedback mechanisms. To implement the programme over the next four years will require about €40m To follow the formal process of the Communications through the EU's policy making process use: Insert the COM Document number and year in the appropriate fields. Further information within European Sources Online: European Sources Online: In Focus
[Note: In Focus features are periodically updated: if these links do not work you can find the updated version by linking to Topic Guides: EU Institutions] Further information can be seen in these external links: European Commission: DG Press and Communication
European Parliament:
Further and subsequent information on the subject of this In Focus can be found by an 'Advanced Search' in European Sources Online by inserting 'EU information and communication policy' or 'Openness and transparency' in the keyword field. Ian Thomson A Communication proposing a new framework for co-operation on activities concerning the information and communication policy of the European Union was adopted by the European Commission on 27 June 2001. |
|
| Subject Categories | Culture, Education and Research |
