Opinion on:

- the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council concerning a multi-annual Community programme to stimulate the development of a European multimedia content industry and to encourage the use of multimedia content in the emerging information society (INFO 2000), and

- the proposal for a Council Decision adopting a multi-annual Community programme to stimulate the development of a European multimedia content industry and to encourage the use of multimedia content in the emerging information society (INFO 2000) ()

(96/C 82/09)

On 14 September 1995, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 130 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned communication and proposal.

The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 29 November 1995. The Rapporteur was Mr Pellarini.

At its 331st Plenary Session (meeting of 21 December 1995), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion unanimously.

1. Introduction

1.1. This programme, which follows on from the Impact programme, is intended to encourage the development of new multimedia products (Multimedia: the mixing of text, graphics, pictures, sound and other 'media' in a digital presentation) and services and to stimulate demand for them: INFO 2000 will run from 1 January 1996 to 31 December 1999, with a budget of ECU 100 million.

1.2. The information content industry is involved in print publishing (newspapers, books, general publications, etc.), electronic publishing (databases, videotex and audiotex services, compact discs, video games, etc.) and the audiovisual industry (television, radio, cinema).

1.3. The sector's 1994 turnover in the EU is estimated at some ECU 150 000 million, and it provided jobs for more than 2 million people.

1.4. The programme lays down three 'action lines':

- stimulating demand and raising public awareness;

- exploiting Europe's public sector information;

- triggering European multimedia potential.

2. General comments

2.1. It is now universally acknowledged that the creation of a global information infrastructure (GII) will have an impact on national economies, the market and everyone's quality of life comparable to that of the industrial revolution on the agricultural societies of the 18th century.

2.1.1. We must consider whether today's society is ready to accept the consequences of this development, trusting only to spontaneous market reactions, or whether the process should be flexibly managed and controlled.

2.1.2. This should be possible since in theory we now possess the knowledge, forecasting capacity and technologically advanced means needed to draw up scenarios and outline models which provide a reasonably accurate picture of the future and which can be constantly updated, enabling us to gain a better understanding of the problems to be tackled.

2.2. Moreover, a number of pointers for more detailed consideration are forthcoming both from major social actors such as trade unions, consumer associations and employers' organizations, and from nations at the forefront of progress such as the USA and Japan.

2.2.1. While all these actors are united in concentrating on the prospects for job creation and consequently on employment potential, they are also focussing, in line with their particular outlooks and interests, on other issues such as the role of the public services in safeguarding cultural heritages and ensuring genuinely universal services, access to information, privacy protection, monitoring of user prices, stable rules on standardization, licensing arrangements, fair competition conditions and intellectual property rights.

2.2.2. Following a period of great enthusiasm in which initiatives mushroomed, the USA is now entering upon a more cautious phase, reflecting the continuing high level of uncertainty among American companies on the question of regulation.

2.2.2.1. Further evidence of this is provided by the fact that some of the largest mergers ever announced within the computer industry have not yet been finalized; furthermore, the planned reform of telecommunications legislation has become bogged down.

2.2.3. In Japan, the monopoly stranglehold over the market exercised by NTT and KDD has not generated an across-the-board decrease in costs and has slowed down the dissemination of new services.

2.2.3.1. The Japanese Government has recently reacted by setting up a working group on information policy, and favours mutual contacts, in particular with the EU.

2.3. The EU has set itself the objective of liberalizing all telecommunications infrastructures and services by 1 January 1998.

2.3.1. At the same time, it has undertaken to adopt a legislative framework establishing a number of shared principles concerning such areas as a universal service, the granting of licences, equal competition conditions, standardization, the protection of intellectual property rights, the protection of private life, etc.

2.3.2. Whilst it is true that this liberalizing process is an essential pre-condition to the information society, at the same time the EU must give concrete evidence of its political will to manage the process, firstly by rapidly establishing a legislative framework to meet the new technological and commercial situation. This should be accompanied by multiannual Community programmes designed to promote the development of the relevant sectors.

2.4. On 13 July 1995 the Commission set up a forum of European experts in the area, charged with examining and commenting upon the various issues relating to the emerging information society.

2.4.1. These basically concern the impact on the organization of work, safeguarding democracy, the quality and transparency of public services, copyright and privacy protection, freedom of access, the cultural dimension, etc.

2.4.2. In practice, the forum's task - both ambitious and difficult - is to outline the possible future scenarios for the information society and to highlight areas of potential, risks, obstacles and strategic objectives, in order to guide the Commission in its action.

2.4.3. The themes discussed within the forum are of considerable political significance for the definition of a legislative framework, and at the same time tie in with the objectives set out in INFO 2000.

3. Comments on the INFO 2000 programme

3.1. The ESC accepts the need to strengthen Community programmes in the information and telecommunications sectors, with specific action on the content industry, particularly in view of the huge potential offered by Europe's cultural values and historic tradition, thanks to which it still - on the threshold of the 21st century - constitutes a cultural, economic and social benchmark.

3.1.1. Nevertheless, these same features also represent a barrier to development and the adoption of new cultural models based on increasing use of the new digital technologies, since even in a single market, European citizens must still cope with a multilingual environment, diverse legal systems, and significant differences in service costs and prices.

3.1.2. In this context, however, stimulating the multimedia content industry is a necessity which should involve not only companies but also the public authorities, education, research and individual citizens.

3.2. The stated objective of the Community's INFO 2000 programme is to take action complementary to other Community programmes under the fourth Framework Programme, both in order to enhance the European content industry's strong points, and to redress some of its weaknesses.

3.2.1. The long-term strategic objectives and action lines have been worded in a way which confirms the project's basic assumptions: an increased concentration of objectives on the critical area of developing the European content industry, rather than the information services system, which is only one among the most important sectors.

3.3. In the light of the above, the Commission communication presenting the draft programme appears unsatisfactory on at least four counts.

3.3.1. The Commission defines the content industry as one of the key dimensions of the information society; it also outlines its structure in production and employment terms and describes the important role it is set to assume in shaping future society. Having done this, however, it glosses over the possible economic and social consequences of, for example, the influence the major publishing groups may exert, of possible mass media concentration, or of the considerable uncertainty as to whether truly pluralistic information can be safeguarded.

3.3.2. The document frequently uses such terms as liberalization, deregulation, competitiveness and free competition, but rarely makes more than the most passing reference to the necessary rules, not even in connection with the long-promised minimum legislative framework: this takes it virtually for granted that the rules will be in place in good time.

3.3.2.1. This approach gives rise to some ambiguity: in fact, many of the programme's projects are directed to studying rules and regulations (see, for example, copyright or intellectual property).

3.3.3. Turning to the scale of funding, simple division of the total amount between the number of planned projects yields an average figure of some ECU 250 000 per project - a sum which is self-evidently insufficient, although varying from project to project, and which unfortunately points to the risk of a scatter-gun approach to distributing Community support.

3.4. A final, baffling point is the brevity of the draft Council Decision itself in contrast to the copious annexes: thought needs to be directed towards the red tape involved and the wide margin of discretion allowed in selecting individual projects.

4. Comments on the programme's action lines

4.1. Further to the meagre overall funding mentioned above, there is also an apparent lack of balance in the percentage distribution between the various action lines: priority should be given to action line 3 (on European multimedia potential), possibly diverting funds away from action line 1 (stimulating demand and raising awareness), since the latter action line could be shorter in duration and certainly less costly.

4.1.1. This stance is justifiable, for instance, in the light of the influence already exerted by the spread of the Internet as an information tool.

4.2. Since specific action on content production industry is not to be separated from that on market mechanisms and rules, the establishment of a specific action line to redress Europe's weaknesses in this area could reinforce the programme further.

4.2.1. In particular, developing access policies (Annex 1, 2.1), trading intellectual property rights (3.2) and spreading the use of multimedia content standards (4.2) represent technical and regulatory props for Europe's structural weakness derived from its political, economic and linguistic fragmentation. These could be brought together in a single action.

4.3. Action line 1 - Stimulating demand and raising awareness

4.3.1. In its communication on a methodology for the implementation of information society applications (COM(95) 224 final), the Commission stresses services of collective interest, and places the priority on services demanded by users; more specifically, it argues that initiatives should be directed towards meeting stated or potential requirements.

4.3.2. The Commission should therefore urgently carry out research into such requirements, since the INFO 2000 programme cannot be restricted simply to stimulating demand and raising awareness for new products.

4.3.3. Furthermore, marketing surveys on this scale - which only some large companies would be in a position to carry out - are also necessary if SMEs are to enter this market at an acceptably competitive level.

4.3.4. If the Commission wishes, first of all, to foster SMEs - the general thrust of many EU actions - then it will also have to provide them with data. It is inconceivable that SMEs, which do not possess the means to carry out research of this kind, should launch costly initiatives without knowing if they are market-viable.

4.3.5. Another area requiring attention is that of cost and price containment and the need for users also to enjoy the greatest possible transparency regarding additional costs for services and accessories: low entry cost is far more likely to achieve market acceptability for a product than an extensive publicity campaign.

4.3.6. Given that this action line is preparatory to the others, timetables and funding should be more narrowly concentrated on the first two years, so as to pave the way for the initial productions which may be expected from the third year on.

4.3.7. Actions already planned can indeed be accompanied by others aimed at encouraging and facilitating the acquisition and exploitation of multimedia products and services, including training and consultancy services, by tailoring them not only to SMEs, but also to consumer markets which, according to numerous studies, will represent one of the main multimedia openings.

4.3.8. Against this backdrop, the role of school education and vocational and university level training could be stepped up.

4.4. Action line 2 - Exploiting Europe's public sector information

4.4.1. A broad range of projects is planned under this line, but in order to involve the public authorities more actively in the field of social interests, priority should be given to support actions for:

- multimedia projects, which many European city authorities are planning or launching, in order to enhance quality of life, particularly in the large urban centres, and reduce both time and expense for individuals in their dealings with the authorities;

- interactive programmes in the health field to inform and advise doctors and patients;

- support programmes for the continuing training sector;

- specific information programmes on regional aid for businesses.

4.4.2. Such projects might create opportunities not only for the development of the content industry, but also for greater grass-roots dissemination of the multimedia culture by providing solutions which are of practical use in everyday life.

4.4.3. The purpose would be to strengthen some of the programmes under the fourth Framework Programme which have set up specific actions on this issue (e.g. the Telematics programme and the TURA subprogramme), although on a scale and with resources insufficient to meet demand.

4.5. Action line 3 - Triggering European multimedia potential

4.5.1. The impact could be intensified by increasing the programme's own resources, especially for action 3.1 (catalyzing high quality European multimedia content); to this end, the distribution of resources between the various actions should be reviewed, as mentioned in 4.1 above, so to increase the share directed to triggering European multimedia potential.

4.6. Support actions

4.6.1. Lastly, activities planned as part of the support actions (action line 4) could cover the European Scientific and Technological Parks and Business Innovation Centres (BIC) network; this has a wealth of know-how and ability, having been involved for some time now in transferring knowledge and innovation to the industrial system. In this context, support actions might be envisaged for the Park projects relating to the development of multimedia content and services.

4.7. Training

4.7.1. The ESC notes that the proposed programme gives little weight to the question of training, on the grounds that this is covered by other Community programmes.

4.7.2. A specific problem however exists concerning multimedia content producers, authors and creators, less for young producers who naturally enjoy readier access, but for older producers who need retraining, particularly in the use of the new technologies and production methods, if their accumulated experience is to be put to good use.

4.7.3. The ESC therefore believes that a training programme should be devised for this purpose, and urges the Commission to instruct CEDEFOP to study the different aspects of the training question in this sphere.

5. Conclusions

5.1. The Committee fears that the Commission is generally tending to underestimate the possible socio-economic consequences of excessive mass media concentration or of the inability to guarantee a plurality of sources of information.

5.2. While the principles of liberalization, deregulation, competitiveness, etc., are actively supported by the Commission, it is a source of great concern that the standards to be observed within the regulatory framework have not yet been established.

5.3. The ESC fully supports the INFO 2000 programme's stated objectives and agrees with the main lines of its contents. In view of the discussion on this issue, the Committee, however, finds some weaknesses in the programme proposal; its overall direction is sometimes vague and its scope is not fully defined.

5.4. Although aware of the difficulties in dealing with the information content question and of the potential risks of over-simplification of the problems involved, the ESC considers that, in this instance, the rules on the transparency and efficacy of proposed actions have not been fully applied.

5.5. Acknowledging the importance and relevance of a speedy Community initiative on the information-content industry, the ESC therefore urges the Commission to consider whether it should, as clearly as possible, make the following points in the programme.

5.5.1. Given the correlation with other Community programmes in the information sector, the ESC believes that INFO 2000 should be viewed as an instrument for closer overall coordination.

5.5.2. In view of the meagre overall funding, at least for the first four-year period, the percentage distribution between the various action lines should be altered so as to trigger the greatest possible European potential (see points 4.1, 4.2, 4.3.6 and 4.5).

5.5.3. In the interests of preventing excessive dilution of the limited resources and of attaining maximum action efficiency, the number of possible projects should be reduced to a minimum applying their workability as the criterion and giving priority to those of a social nature (see points 3.3.3, 4.3.2 and 4.4.1).

Done at Brussels, 20 December 1995.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Carlos FERRER

() OJ No 250, 26. 9. 1995, p. 4.