Official information about EU affairs – Co-operation networks of EU Institutions and Member States’ Governments

BY PETER BENDER^*
(Assistant to a Member of the European Parliament)

Europe - A common message?:

How do European Union Institutions and Member States' governments co-operate in order to bring official information about EU affairs to the citizens and other target groups? This has been the basic question of the author's Political Science PhD thesis 'Europe as a topic of political communication'.² The co-operation of the different participants within the policy network 'EU information work' was assessed on the respective levels according to the criteria strategy, institutionalisation of contacts, and network structure. A general overview on the information activities of European Commission, European Parliament and selected EU Member States' governments could be given. A new terminological and analytical framework was also elaborated. This framework now enables researchers, politicians and practitioners to locate criticism and shortcomings of EU information activities much more precisely than before. One main finding of the thesis is that, in general, more attention should be paid to the interinstitutional and top-down dissemination of information and to decentralised information about information possibilities themselves through (connected) relays rather than only concentrating on improving the production of information material or agreeing on harmonised messages or press releases.

This article is an abridged version of the final chapter of the thesis. Assessments are personal conclusions of the author along the criteria given above and based on previous thesis research results during 1995/1996 if not stated otherwise.³

Co-operation network at EU level - High politics in Brussels:

Since 1996, a political high-level group involved in EU information activities exists. It comprises eight Members of the European Parliament and four European Commissioners. This 'Interinstitutional Working Group' monitors especially the EU Priority Information Actions (PRINCE) and was able to resolve in early 1996 conflicts between Parliament and Commission concerning the strategy, the financial endowment, the role of the Member States, and the balance between the three actions.⁴ Reports about the co-operation of the Commission's DG X and the Parliament's DG III in information matters are produced since 1995 on a regular basis.

Table 1: Structure of the co-operation network at EU level

Other bodies of (interinstitutional) co-operation on EU information activities at European level include the Task Force PRINCE, the interinstitutional working group Internet, the Council Group on Information, and the Board of the Office for Official Publications (EUR-OP).

There are also formal meetings such as the annual meeting of the Interinstitutional Working Group, representatives from Commission's DG X, Parliament's DG III, the heads of the Commission's representations, and the Parliament's information offices in the Member States⁸

The main characteristics of co-operation within the different policy networks 'Information on EU affairs' will be presented in the form of a standardised table to facilitate the comparison between the different levels.⁹

Co-operation at national level - A comparison of Germany, France and the United Kingdom:
Campaign efficiency in Germany

The policy network 'Official information about EU affairs' in Germany is characterised by a reduced number of participants in the core network. These participants, however, are actively involved and co-ordinate their campaign-related strategies well. Other features are a medium degree of institutionalised contacts and a relatively high integration of the network despite sectoralisation and functional approach. Potential for co-operation is high.¹⁰

Table 2: Structure of the co-operation network in Germany

One example of campaign-related co-operation is the campaign office 'Aktionsgemeinschaft EURO' run by the Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung (Press Office of the Federal Government), the European Commission's representation and the European Parliament office. It was designed after the successful Aktion 'Wählen gehen!' (Action 'Go and vote!') before the 1994 EP elections.

In Germany there is a basic consensus among the key network participants to inform about the euro and to disseminate basic EU information to the citizens. The move of the Commission's representation and the European Parliament office to common premises in Berlin is likely to intensify the co-operation.

As to campaigns and sectoral activities, the core co-operation network is well integrated. However, the participation of the Länder (federal states), the relays and local authorities could be improved, particularly in the field of basic EU information and consumer advice. The successful campaign-related co-operation between Bundespresseamt, Commission's representation and EP office can serve as a model for other Member States.

Encyclopedic reference in France

The policy network 'Official information on EU affairs' in France is characterised by a reduced number of participants within the core network. The partially high involvement of these participants varies, depending on topic and sector. Other characteristics are a minimal divergence of the participant strategies, neutralised by highly institutionalised, formal and hierarchical contacts. The network is centralised, horizontally more integrated than in all other Member States covered by this study, and highly differentiated. Potential for co-operation is very high. Network participants in France are interested in the German campaign-based co-operation for the PRINCE campaigns.¹¹

The co-ordination network in France is clearly marked by the key role of Sources d'Europe as the central hub for disseminating EU information. On the other hand, information strategy development and media information remain political tasks of the Ministry of European Affairs and the Commission's representation. Vertical network integration is promoted by information campaigns such as 'Dialogue national' and permanent training of public administration officials, involving more and more the Conseils Régionaux. The integration of the Commission's relays, however, should be strengthened.

Relay pragmatism in the United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom the co-operation network 'Official information on EU affairs' is well integrated, despite sometimes conflicting participant strategies and the high number of very heterogeneous participants with extremely different involvement and attitudes.¹² The main reason for this is the consequently decentralised and functionally differentiated network structure, the professionalism, and the exemplary vertical integration through relays. By this, the very diverse potential of co-operation can be used optimally and efficiently.

Table 3: Structure of the co-operation network in France

Institutionalisation of contacts varies remarkably within the core network. There are close ties between the EP office and the Commission's representation. Co-operation between EU institutions and national government authorities also varies considerably. With the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for Education, and the Central Office of Information, joint actions and publications have been done. But the Home Office was not willing to co-operate to inform citizens about the 1994 EP elections. In general, co-operation between central government authorities and EU institutions, e.g. within the framework of the 'Open Government' initiative, could be further developed. On the other hand, contacts between the EU institutional offices and the relays are much better developed than in any other Member State covered by this study. The most important instrument to co-ordinate the decentralised relays was the National Co-ordinating Committee (NCC). Despite a completely different structure and task, the NCC had a similar integrating role within the network as Sources d'Europe has in France. The permanent relay work of the NCC and the active role of the relays should serve as an example for other Member States.

Table 4: Structure of the co-operation network in the United Kingdom

Conclusions - Joint efforts for an EU information community:

Co-operation between the participants in the networks 'Official information about EU affairs' varies considerably between the different Member States. Nevertheless, the need for co-operation at European, national, regional and even local level is increasingly recognised by all institutions involved throughout the Member States. A uniform EU information policy, centrally administered by Brussels, is neither feasible nor desirable. However, the decentralised information structures in the Member States should be supported adequately by helpdesk style institutions at national or European level. Interinstitutional dissemination of information material and telematic links should also be further developed, especially between national administrations and EU relays. In some countries central but not centralising reference and co-ordination structures proved to be helpful and efficient. The systematic and medium-term campaign-related co-operation of EU institutions and Member States' governments within the framework of the PRINCE actions could lead to a long-term consolidation of the national co-operation networks.

The democratic deficit of the EU and the lack of transparency cannot be removed by official information and communication activities of the EU institutions or Member States' governments. However, a more integrated network of information on EU affairs could make a significant contribution to reduce the EU information and communication deficit and thus counteract citizens' frustration with European politics. In doing so, the policy network 'Official information on EU affairs' itself could become a further step towards European integration.

Notes

^1. Bender, Peter: Europa als Gegenstand der politischen Kommunikation - eine vergleichende Untersuchung der Informations - und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit von Europäischer Kommission, Europäischem Parlament und den Regierungen ausgewählter EU-Mitgliedstaaten. Diss. masch., Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, 1997.

^2. The following Member States have been investigated in the thesis: France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. In this abridged summary only France, Germany and the United Kingdom will be covered.

^3. More than 80 persons and institutions were contacted during 1995/1996 to do research for the thesis. Since many informants asked for anonymity, no names will be published in this article, but the institution to which the contacted person belonged will be mentioned as a 'source'.

^4. Paragraph according to source: European Parliament 1996.

^5. According to source: European Parliament - United Kingdom office 1996.

^6. The 'Club de Venise' was founded in 1985 on an initiative of the Italian government and named after Venice, one of the places where the meetings took place.

^7. According to source: European Commission/European Parliament 1996; Bundespresseamt 1995.

^8. cf source European Parliament - United Kingdom office 1996; European Parliament - Information Office for Germany 1996.

^9. All tables are presentations by the author, for selection of criteria cf Marian Döhler: PolicyNetworks, Opportunity Structures and Neo-Conservative Reform Strategies in Health Policy in Bernd Marin/Renate Mayntz (eds): Policy Networks: empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, Frankfurt (Main)/Boulder, 1991, p241; 253.

^10. These assessments refer to the research period 1995/1996. Subsequent changes under the new government since 1998 are not taken into account.

^11. cf source European Parliament - Information Office for Germany. Apart from 'Dialogue national' no further information about the organisation of the PRINCE actions in France was available to the author.

^12. These assessments refer to the research period in 1996. Changes under the new government since 1997 are not taken into account.

Contact
Peter Bender
Rue de la Besace, 22
B-1000
Brussels
Belgium
Tel/Fax: +32-2-733-8619

^* The article reproduces the personal views of the author and not the official view of the European Parliament or his employer.