[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |

Brussels, 27.2.2008

SEC(2008) 242

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying document to the

Proposal for a DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing a multiannual Community programme on protecting children using the Internet and other communication technologies IMPACT ASSESSMENT

{COM(2008) 106 final}{SEC(2008) 243}

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Background 4

1.1. State of play: Commission action 4

1.2. State of play: Legislation 6

1.3. Lessons learnt from the past 8

2. Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties 10

3. Problem definition 12

3.1. Problem analysis 12

3.2. Specific risks for children and young people 16

3.3. Who is affected? Target groups 23

4. Objectives 23

4.1. General objective and Specific objectives 23

4.2. Illegal content and harmful conduct/content 24

4.3. Promoting a safer environment online 24

4.4. Awareness-raising 24

4.5. Establishing a knowledge-base 24

4.6. All actions 24

5. Strategic Policy options 25

5.1. Formulation of policy options 25

5.2. Analysis of the impact of the policy options 27

5.3. General policy option 1: Make no change 27

5.4. General policy option 2: Modify 32

5.5. General policy option 3: Slow down 37

5.6. General policy option 4: Stop 41

6. Comparison of the Strategic Policy optio 43

6.1. Comparison 43

6.2. Ranking of options and preferred option 46

7. Risks and Assumptions 47

8. A proposal for a new programme 49

8.1. European Added Value and the principle of subsidiarity 49

9. Cost-effectiveness 51

9.1. Justification of the cost of the proposed intervention 51

9.2. Cost-effectiveness of the funding mechanism 52

10. Monitoring and evaluation 53

10.1. Programme level data sources 54

10.2. Ex-post assessment of the results on programme level 54

10.3. Project level data sources 54

Legislative instruments 57

The structure of the new programme 60

Summary of the results of the public consultation (Online public consultation and Safer Internet Forum 20-21 June 2007) 62

Information sources and documentation used 67

1. BACKGROUND

The envisaged new programme has the overall aim to promote safer use of Internet and other communication technologies (hereafter referred to as "online technologies"), especially by children.

1.1. State of play: Commission action

At the policy level, the Commission has been successful in placing the issues of developing a safer Internet firmly on the agenda of the EU and the Member States via policy work which started in 1996 with the Communication on illegal and harmful content on the Internet. This was followed by two successive programmes, the Safer Internet Action Plan (1999-2004) and the Safer Internet plus programme (2005 – 2008). The foresight of the European Commission in identifying issues related to risks to children in the online environment early on in the development of the Internet has been widely recognised.

These programmes constitute the only pan-European initiative relating to child protection online and have several actions that have proved effective.

The Safer Internet plus Programme has had four action lines:

- Fighting illegal content

- Tackling harmful content

- Promoting a safer environment

- Awareness-raising

The launching of national hotlines is seen as one of the main achievements of the two programmes. Under the Safer Internet Action Plan a widespread system of hotlines all over Europe in nearly all Member States had been developed, coordinated by INHOPE, the International Association of Internet Hotlines. Hotlines are contact points where end-users can report illegal content on the Internet. All hotlines are working together, inter alia , with police, law enforcement and awareness nodes as well as with ISPs, industry organisations and other institutions. Through providing funding for hotlines[1], the Commission "has made a significant contribution to combating illegal content"[2]. According to INHOPE[3], hotlines have been sending a steadily increasing number of reports on illegal content to the police. In the second half of 2005, the number of reports increased by 16% compared to the first 6 months. In 2006 the European hotlines received 96.497 web based reports of which 29.550 (31%) were transferred to the police (according to INHOPE)[4]. Some spectacular international law enforcement operations were initiated by reports received by Hotlines, such as in 2003 the “Marcy" operation, which led to investigations against 26,500 persons in 166 countries.

The evaluations of the existing hotlines produced evidence that they are offering a useful, relevant, and effective service.

The development of awareness nodes (national contact points) in nearly all EU Member States is considered to be another major achievement. Awareness raising is regarded as a crucial need. It must address itself to different target groups such as local and national media, children, parents’ organisations, schools or policy-makers[5]. Under the Safer Internet plus programme the system of awareness nodes is being complemented by Helplines which allow children to receive one-to-one advice on online-related experiences and issues. The evaluation reports underline the key importance of awareness-raising. They highlight the role of the Commission in initiating and launching awareness-raising initiatives across Europe.

Even if the awareness nodes often did "not get the appropriate support from national authorities and the media and are not given a high enough priority on the public policy agenda of national governments"[6], "awareness levels have significantly improved in all Member States"[7]. According to the 2005 Eurobarometer survey, the 41% average awareness level of the EU15 countries in 2003 has increased to 54% in 2005 in the 15 "old" Member States[8]. "Member States with relatively lower awareness levels (below average in 2003) made 22.2% progress during this period"[9].

Both the hotline and awareness network have ties with actions in other countries around the world, and have strong visibility in relevant forums. The most visible events in this context are the Safer Internet Days, which since 2004 have been celebrated annually at the beginning of February and since 2005 have been organised under the patronage of Commissioner Viviane Reding. The participation rates demonstrate well how the visibility of and the interest in the Community actions have been increasing over the years:

In 2005 65 organizations from 30 countries took part, and the activities included the launch of a storytelling competition for children including personalities such as Princess Alexandra of Denmark and President Grimssson of Iceland.

In 2006 a total of 37 countries and around 100 organizations participated in the Safer Internet Day. In addition to the many national, regional and local events, there was a worldwide "blogathon" for safer Internet: a wide range of organizations active in promoting Internet made postings on the blog and invited comments from visitors, children, schools and parents. The blog, which included content in several languages, had a geographical focus that moved west through the global time zones, from New Zealand to Argentina.

In 2007, more than 200 organisations from 43 countries participated in activities around the world, and far-reaching "extremely high"[10] media coverage could be noted: the EU awareness nodes alone (the national awareness points co-funded by the Community and networked under INSAFE) reported a total of 1,256 media items[11], including a TV spot[12] shown various times on 7 countries[13], the reports however being incomplete and not covering the whole of 43 countries worldwide.

Following the evaluation reports, self-regulatory initiatives instigated by the Commission were successful and "according to the Internet Watch Foundation extremely successful in developing self-regulation in the UK. The SIAP enabled a monumental shift towards widespread awareness amongst service providers"[14]. A further successful example is the agreement with leading European mobile operators on protecting minors using mobile phones, initiated by the Commission and signed on Safer Internet Day 6 February .2007. To implement the European Framework, signatory operators and content providers committed themselves to developing national self-regulatory codes by February 2008[15].

After having selected 4 projects for preparatory actions in 1998, 37 projects were selected for funding under the first phase of the Safer Internet Action Plan between 1999 and 2002 (12 hotline, 12 awareness raising projects, 13 projects on rating and filtering systems, 2 service contracts on self-regulation and awareness exchange). Around 13.37 million € were spent. During the extension period of the Safer Internet Action Plan (2003 - 2004) 22 hotline, 25 awareness raising and 5 thematic projects were supported. The Community funding was of around 14.4 Million €. Following the call for proposals 2005 33 contracts were signed under Safer Internet plus for a total EC funding of around 10.87 million € (14 hotlines, 16 awareness projects including 10 helplines, 2 thematic networks). The Call 2006 allowed selecting 15 projects (total budget around 4.45 million €), including 6 Hotline, 8 Awareness and 2 Helpline projects, 4 pilot/thematic and user empowerment projects[16].

A further call for proposals has been published in 2007, and a final call will take place in 2008. This Impact Assessment is drawn up to see whether further action is required after the end of the current programme on 31 December 2008.

1.2. State of play: Legislation

Risks for and negative impacts on the child can result from being exposed to illegal content and conduct or to legal, but harmful, content and conduct. Although the issues and the international context are complex, the EU (and the Council of Europe) has set certain Europe-wide standards, clarifying legal issues through various recommendations and directives concerning the protection of minors and human dignity, electronic commerce, privacy and electronic communications and child sexual abuse images.

From a legal point of view an essential distinction has to be made between what is illegal on the one hand and harmful on the other, since they require different methods, strategies and tools to deal with.

The conceptions of what is to be considered to be illegal vary from country to country. What is regarded as "illegal content" and "illegal conduct" is defined by the applicable national law. Despite many common features, there are also significant differences of details between the laws of Member States (and of third countries where content may be produced or hosted).

The primary method of dealing with illegal content and conduct is for the law enforcement bodies to prosecute the offenders and bring them before the courts. There may also be regulatory bodies responsible for taking action to enforce certain rules (such as consumer protection) or there may be parallel civil remedies (as with copyright infringements).

When considering online technologies, this process is complicated by the fact that the elements of the offence may be spread out over different countries; a child abuse image produced in one place, but hosted in a second and downloaded from all over the word; abusers have been known to travel over country barriers to meet up with children for abuse after having met them online. It may therefore be difficult to exercise jurisdiction over the prime culprits. International co-operation is therefore vital.

Harmful content and conduct is content / behaviour which parents, teachers and other adults consider to be harmful to children. Definitions of what is considered harmful to children again vary across countries and cultures; it can range from pornography and violence to racism, xenophobia, hate speech and music, self-mutilation, anorexia, and suicide sites. There may also be legal provisions restricting distribution of harmful content to adults only (legal pornography, for instance). Also here differences in details between the laws of Member States and of third countries are noticeable.

A variety of means exist to deal with harmful content , all of which need to be used in combination in order to increase their effectiveness: enforcement of legal provisions, self-regulation, and technical means such as filtering. Awareness-raising and education play a fundamental role as they help to empower children for a better and safer use of these media, enable parents and educators to better protect children and lead to a better visibility of child safety issues on the agendas of the decision-makers.

In the area of illegal content and in the regulation of distribution of harmful content, the primary liability of content providers is still largely a matter of national law. Member States also differ in the sensitivity, as for example to public exposure of nudity and sexual activity and to how serious it is seen that children are exposed to nudity, violence and other potential harmful content.

Instruments exist which lay down rules that Member States are required to implement. The list of legislative measures attached as Annex 1 covers well the field of online child protection. The impact assessment therefore does not examine the need for new legislative measures . It does examine ways of complementing and not duplicating what has already been decided through the legislative instruments.

The envisaged new programme will also take into account the actions launched under other programmes and initiatives, namely "Prevention of and Fight against Crime", "Daphne III" and Media Literacy"; it will build on and complement them so as to avoid duplication and to maximise impact. It finally considers the tasks of ENISA which carries out risk assessment and risk management methods to enhance the users' capability to deal with information security threats, security being deemed as vital for the functioning of computers, mobile phones, banking, the Internet etc. A common interest exists where awareness of children and young people is promoted for this type of security issues (e.g. phishing, identity theft). For this reason cooperation is envisaged when it leads to the mutual reinforcement of activities.[17]

The legal basis will be art. 153 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community on protection of the consumer, which was the article used for the legal basis agreed by the European Parliament and Council for the original Safer Internet Action Plan in 1999, for the 2 year extension of the Action Plan in 2003 and for the Safer Internet plus programme.

1.3. Lessons learnt from the past

The most recent programme evaluation, published in 2006[18] and carried out by independent experts, gave – after the evaluations dating from 2001 and 2003 – again a positive assessment of the achievements of the preceding programmes, underlining their significant contribution in dealing with the risks to children in the online environment. The evaluators recognised the Community action as a relevant and effective programme and recommended that it "should continue". The European Union is seen as a "pioneer which identified at an early stage the issue of illegal and harmful content on the Internet as a serious and important political question of a global dimension"[19].

More specifically, it was concluded that the network of national hotlines and of awareness nodes in nearly all EU Member States are a major achievement of the programme. The “Safer Internet Day” is recognized as a valuable opportunity to improve communication among stakeholders and to reach out to the broader public. At the policy level the programme has been successful in putting online child safety firmly on the agenda of the EU and the Member States. Stakeholders agree that the programme's original objectives, priorities and means of implementation still apply, and that the action lines are appropriate mechanisms for the fulfilment of the objectives. A particular feature is the bringing together of disparate organisations such as child protection NGOs and software development houses and ISPs – organisations with very different aims and cultures.

A series of specific recommendations were formulated in the evaluation reports and in the Eurobarometer:

- To enhance the Hotlines' cooperation with the police

- The cooperation between hotlines and other stakeholders, in particular with police and law enforcement, is recommended to be strengthened. Collaboration and co-ordination procedures between hotlines and the police should be reviewed and further developed in order to make the fight against illegal content as effective as possible. Hotlines should receive feedback from the police as in some cases a better follow-up of reports is required.

- To increase the visibility of hotlines in public

- The launching of national hotlines is seen as one of the main achievements of the action. However, the majority of Internet end-users still have little or no knowledge about the existence of hotlines. In most of the countries, the awareness of the existence of hotlines does not reach 10 % of the totality of Internet end-users. It is inter alia recommended to exploit better the potential of synergies between the awareness and the hotline networks.

- To devote a higher proportion of the programme budget to awareness raising

- Awareness-raising is considered as a crucial need. Numerous techniques, tools and materials, according to local needs, have been developed and should be spread throughout the networks and stakeholders. A higher budget would allow financing additional efforts.

- To focus awareness-raising more on specific target groups, especially to pursue tailored strategies to address children, parents or teachers

- To focus more on children under 10 who are already heavy users of Internet and mobile phones

- Awareness-raising should focus more on specific target groups. In many cases, activities are considered to reach only limited numbers of target groups, due to their heterogeneous nature (stakeholders such as local and national media, parents’ organisations or schools). As particularly children under 10 have been catching up in the level of use of online technologies the awareness network should pursue tailored strategies to address them.

- To provide information through channels to suit the needs of the parents and the age of the children (schools, ISPs, media)

- To reach the target groups better and to maximise the effectiveness of awareness raising the evaluators recommend to exploit all possible information channels in a broader way.

- To promote more active involvement by the media in awareness campaigns

- The better involvement of media in awareness campaigns is regarded as a key tool for reaching a large number of children, stakeholders and citizens. According to the evaluations there is room for intensifying the media's engagement.

- To facilitate discussion among national administrations (e.g. education ministries) on school education concerning safer use of online technologies. To involve children and young people in identifying problems and designing solutions

Children and young people need to be reached at a very early stage, but “Internet Education” is currently insufficiently integrated into the regular curricula of schools in most Member States. Discussion among national administrations (e.g. education ministries) should therefore be facilitated to examine how safer use of the Internet can be brought into the schools.

- To encourage wider involvement of ISPs and other relevant industry players

- It is recommended to involve the industry more systematically and to exploit their potential to contribute better to make the Internet environment safer for children.

- To encourage industry self-regulatory solutions at European level; to foster the exchange of best practices, inter alia , of codes of conduct, content labelling and rating systems

- The establishment of self-regulation standards should be promoted. This includes also content labelling and rating systems which continue to be an important element in making the Internet a safer place for minors. Even if some encouraging developments in industry self-regulation, codes of conduct and best practices, inter alia in the field of video games and mobile content, were noted, this leaves still room for actuation and improvement.

- To promote the adoption of age verification systems

- Age verification is regarded to be a promising tool for protecting children from inappropriate content viewing. Existing systems and technologies need, however, to be further developed.

- To develop actions taking account of changing risk situations (e.g. chat-rooms, Instant Messaging Services, peer-to-peer technologies)

- The evaluators point out that new risk situations arise for children with the further diffusion of new Internet enabled end-user devices like "3G" mobile phones and new practices such as social networking (including chat linked to the use of webcams), Internet Blogging or File Sharing. They recommend to map possible future technological developments and user options, to analyse the implication of convergent services and new modes of communication on the safety of children and on user behaviour and to disseminate the results of such analysis largely.

- To continue to engage with actors external to the European Union

- In view of the global nature of the Internet safety problem the evaluators recommend to reinforce engagement with actors external to the European Union. Specific focus should be given to the cooperation with Candidate countries, Russia and the Ukraine.

The lessons learnt during the years of running the Safer Internet Action Plan and the Safer Internet plus Programme surveys have been taken into consideration when defining the objectives below.

2. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES

The Commission launched a consultation of interested parties consisting of an online Public Consultation which ran from 12 April 2007 until 7 June 2007 and of the "Safer Internet Forum 2007" (Luxembourg, 20-21 June 2007). The "core principles" as defined in the Communication on the Collection and Use of Expertise by the Commission: Principles and Guidelines; COM(2002) 713 final, i.e. seeking high quality of advise, ensure openness and effectiveness were rigorously respected.

The online public consultation[20] was structured around three topics:

- Fighting illegal content

- Fighting harmful content

- User- generated content and online communication

The questionnaires focused on specific risk situations for children and dealt with a broad variety of possible measures which could make the Internet a safer place. The public consultation gathered 92 contributions, from a range of stakeholders: Industry actors and associations, associations (children's rights organisations, consumer organisations, trade unions and political movements), hotlines and awareness nodes, public administration bodies (law enforcement, regulators, governments etc), researchers and universities and a number of individuals. The individual responses are published on the web[21].

The Safer Internet Forum is a European discussion forum for representatives of industry, law enforcement authorities, child welfare organisations and policy makers to exchange experience and knowledge. It provides a platform for national co-regulatory or self-regulatory bodies to discuss ways in which industry can contribute to creating a safer online environment for children and fight against distribution of illegal content, such as child abuse material.

The Forum 2007 focused on specific risks for children related to the use of the Internet and online technologies. It was composed of three workshops and a plenary session for discussing relevant issues with stakeholders, who had the opportunity to give input to the public consultation in advance to the possible follow-up programme from 2009 to 2013 and it gathered 125 participants and more than 20 keynote speakers from 29 countries, from the same group of stakeholders as the public consultation.

The three workshops dealt with:

1. Online-related sexual abuse of children, in particular grooming

2. Assessing the need for awareness-raising for creating a safe online environment for children

3. The impact and consequences of convergence of online technologies for online safety.

Ample documentation on the results of the public consultation are published on the web, i.e. the minutes of the workshops, speakers' presentations, and a Summary Report on the results of the public consultation.[22]

During the Impact Assessment process the lead DG was supported by a Steering Group which was composed of members of those Commission services which deal with related areas or which have tasks to Impact Assessment, legal, procedural and budgetary issues.[23]

Opinion of the Impact Assessment Board

The draft Impact Assessment was presented to the Impact Assessment Board on the 7th November 2007. The Board examined it and delivered its final opinion on the 3rd December 2007. The following main recommendations for improvements were suggested by the Board:

- the rationale of the options should be better explained or the set of options reconsidered

- the lessons learnt from current and previous programmes should be explicitly reflected in the policy options.

- links with other Community initiatives in the field of internet security should be clarified

- the report should explicitly discuss the possible social and economic impacts on third countries.

- the report should include summary of the view of the respondents, specify which services participated in the inter-service steering group, strictly separate the problem definition and objective setting and the distinction between option description and impact analysis.

In response the recommendations of the Board, a number of changes were introduced into the draft Impact Assessment. Explanation of the rationale for the choice of options was introduced in chapter 5.1. The options differ essentially in the intensity with which they tackle the risks identified in the problem definition and in which they respond to the given objectives, to "lessons learned" and in the costs of the proposed measures. Actions under each option are described more concretely and the reasons for a relatively modest financial difference between Option 1 and 2 are clarified.

Lessons learned from the previous programmes and evaluations are explained in chapter 1.3. The new section in chapter 4.6 provides explanation as to how the experience was reflected when formulating the objectives and options. Links with other Community initiatives in the field of internet security are further explored in section 1.2, particularly with regard to ENISA.

Impact on third countries is discussed in the analysis of impacts for each option and is taken up also as a criterion of comparison of options in section 7.1.

The newly added Annex 3 provides a summary of the view of respondents to the public consultation; internal steering group participants are mentioned in this section (footnote). Description of problems is clearly separated from objectives. Due to the wide variety of issues treated in the IA and due to additional requirements for explanation and input, it was not possible to stick strictly to the recommended limit of 30 pages.

3. PROBLEM DEFINITION

3.1. Problem analysis

The rapid development of Internet and other information and communication technologies has given rise to a completely new economic sector and to new rapid flows of information, products and services across the internal and external borders of the EU. Although this contributes considerably to economic growth in Europe, it also has a negative side which manifests itself in the distribution of illegal and harmful content and in behaviours which are specifically harmful for the most vulnerable citizens - the children. New problems arise with the further diffusion of new Internet enabled end-user devices like next generation mobile phones and new practices such as social networking (including chat linked to the use of webcams), Internet Blogging and File Sharing.

The rapid development and uptake of online technologies in Europe gives children and young people great opportunities for being creative, for cultural and technological understanding, for communication and for learning. Internet penetration in the home stands at more than 42% for citizens and exceeds 90% for businesses and schools. According to the 2005 Eurobarometer survey internet use by children aged 17 or younger has increased from 45% in 2004 to 48%. In the 15 ‘old’ Member States, the proportion of children using the Internet now stands at 51%, with highest recent growth rates in Belgium, Greece and France[24]. New Member States are catching up. In Lithuania, for example, the use of the Internet has augmented between 2005 and 2007 from 42 % of the population to 54 %. Amongst children the percentage increased from 63 % to 74%[25] (this takes into account that children who do not have access at home, may have access at school or other places). Significant growth was also recorded in Slovakia, Malta and Estonia[26].

In the last Eurobarometer survey (2007), which covered 29 European countries (27 MS and Norway and Iceland), 9-10 year old children typically said that they connect several times per week, the minimum connection time being half an hour to one hour. 12-14 year old children generally use the Internet daily, often for one to three hours[27]. This survey also confirms that most European children use mobile phones: The vast majority of the interviewed children have a mobile phone - overall three out of four of the 9-10 year old, and nine out of ten of the 12-14 year old[28].

Most of the risks that children and young people encounter are not specific to them – the risks are the same for adults – and neither are they confined to their use of online technologies; they encounter the same risks in other (real life) arenas as well. However, children are more vulnerable than adults. The scope of the programme is aimed at children and the adults responsible for them. The risks for adults in general and for companies are addressed by other Commission initiatives. The approach of the programme is to look at the child-specific dimension of risks related to the use of online technologies.

At the same time, risks in the online and offline environment are converging, and although most children and young people are aware of potential risks and of precautions, they do not necessarily take the necessary precautions or act in the safest way when they communicate in the online environment. For example, the possible harm to children playing (video) games (for instance concerning games of a violent or sexual nature) will be the same whether they are played online or on game consoles at home.

As users of online technologies, children and young people can be seen as recipients, participants and actors in the online environment. As recipients they may be exposed to content that might be considered harmful to them, and that might cause considerably trauma or incite them to inflict harm on themselves or others. As participants , they participate in the communication with others in the online environment, including potential abusers who use online technologies to target children and befriend them (grooming). As actors , children generate content in a creative manner, and might inflict pain on others through bullying and abuse.

Both as users of online technologies and as victims of abuse, children are potentially the most vulnerable, and become the victims of grooming for sexual abuse or of abuse which is documented and circulated online (child sexual abuse material). For abusers, they are easy to target, since they are open to deception and exploitation and may have not yet developed defence mechanisms when being confronted to inappropriate content.

Technologies, communication networks, media, content, services and devices will increasingly undergo digital convergence . Devices and platforms are already “talking to one another”, content is becoming available in new, diverse formats and can increasingly be delivered independent of location or time, and personalized to individual citizens’ preferences or requirements. Improvements in networks, faster broadband, combined with new compression techniques, create new and faster distribution channels and trigger new content formats and services as well as new forms of communication. In the public consultation it was pointed out that the increased accessibility to the Internet from various devices will make children vulnerable through more access points. New technologies have for example created ways of "round the clock bullying". Whereas previously bullying was confined to times and places where children are in groups, such as at school, technology provides 24 hour communication access.

New technologies include ever-increasing processing power and storage capacity of computers, broadband allowing distribution of rich content such as video which requires high bandwidth, and the increased capacity of the latest "3G" generation of mobile telephones. This new generation of mobile phones allows distributing video content and to access the Internet and for example online chat rooms. The technological changes allow an increase in the volume as well as in the types of content distributed. The use of high speed Internet connections is increasing dramatically. In the twelve months before October 2004, the number of people in Europe surfing the Internet at high speed from home increased from 34.1 million people to 54.5 million people – an increase of 60%. The largest increases occurred in Italy (120%), and in the UK (93%)[29]. Broadband users are spending significantly more time online, using the web more often, and visiting more websites than their slower, dial-up counterparts. This increase in connectivity by children will see a corresponding increase in benefits for them but also risks of "collateral damage".

Children are often the first to take up and use new technologies. However, currently we are not prepared to understand these changes in time and to develop strategies to deal with the emerging risks. The challenge is to understand these changes in time and to develop counter-strategies as new risks materialize.

Technical tools cannot solve the problems of Internet safety alone, but they are a necessary element within a multi-faceted Internet safety policy. Age recognition systems can restrict access to inappropriate content for minors of age, filtering technologies can support parents in regulating better what their children have access to, and victim identification (face recognition) is an important requirement within the investigations of law enforcement bodies. However, the existing technologies suffer of many shortcomings and need to be better adapted to practical needs and requirements.

According to the 2005 Eurobarometer survey[30], 48% of the parents in the EU-25 claim to use filtering or blocking tools to keep their children away from illegal or harmful content in Internet. However, a study carried out by the London School of Economics[31] comes to the conclusion that only 15% of parents in the UK say they install filtering software. This might indicate that many parents think or said they have blocking software installed on their children’s PC when in fact they did not. A continued focus on promoting the uptake of parental control tools is needed.

The industry is an important actor in the field of online child safety; self-regulation systems are a promising way to reduce illegal content and the access to it. The framework agreement between the Commission and mobile phone operators is a promising step, nevertheless the involvement of the industry has a good potential for additional actions, but it leaves scope for progress . Interaction and cooperation should furthermore be sought between multiple stakeholders, including the industry and also NGOs, educational organizations, the media, public authorities etc. The current "Youth Protection Roundtable" project encourages for example a cross-sector dialogue between technology-developers and education specialists aiming at developing strategies for a safer use of the Internet applicable on the level of technology development. More can be done in this respect.

The idea of creating a risk free Internet for children and young people is an illusion; it is a fight which cannot be won. A key element of any policy in this field must inevitably be to empower children, i.e. to equip them with the knowledge to avoid hazards and to deal with risks. Currently, public awareness is not sufficiently developed on all levels to recognize the need of children to be better prepared; the subject of Internet security has neither been introduced sufficiently into the curricula of the Member State school systems. Awareness campaigns on the Member State level could become more effective if the actors involved had better knowledge about successful awareness raising methods and tools concerning online safety in the EU. Awareness raising must become more effective and more systematic.

There is a noticeable lack of European comparative facts and figures , of robust statistics (nationally and Europe-wide). For example, hardly any figures exist on the extent and the forms of online sexual abuse and grooming. As far as knowledge exists it is not pooled at European level; this makes it difficult to access the existing resources and hampers the identification of current knowledge gaps. Ongoing investigations on Member State level are not coordinated within the EU which makes it difficult to find comparable results. A number of issues have not been investigated at all and would need to be better analysed on national and EU level, as for example the ways children act when using communication technologies or the ways offenders use new technologies in view of sexual abuses (how they find and target children, the changing nature of grooming behaviour, the link between consumption of child abuse images and contact sexual abuse etc).

Many of the risks that children encounter when using online technologies are not specific to them – the risks are the same for adults – and they are not confined to their use of online technologies. They encounter the same risks in other (real life) arenas as well. However, they are more vulnerable and can be manipulated more easily. Children's specific views on the way the "live with" online technologies and on the way they perceive and deal with risks must be better understood when developing policy strategies. Their direct involvement in such reflection processes can bring added value to it. Up to now, this has not been done.

The answers for dealing with the challenges described above and for fighting risk situations which can cause considerable harm to children (illustrated in the preceding chapter) cannot be expected to be provided by market forces alone . On the one side the market, i.e. the industries, must play their role wherever they are in the position of doing so. Self-regulation, rating and labelling systems, the use of certain technological solutions (e.g. mobile phone handsets specifically designed for children)[32] are promising ways to protect children better. On the other side market interests, i.e. the profit-making, do not always coincide with child protection issues. MMS services[33] for mobile phones and providing access to the internet via mobile phones[34] are examples for innovative services with promising revenues – the industry does therefore not have a "natural interest" in blocking such functions for children. Or, to give another example, labelling video games or rating content will have the effect of decreasing sales to the age groups addressed. Past experience has shown that public intervention is necessary to enhance the industry's sense of responsibility[35]. Furthermore, due to their cross-cutting nature, actions to enhance internet safety are not limited to the competences of industries, they also address to specific functions which can only be taken by the appropriate organisations, such as law enforcement or child welfare organisations (see "target group" definition below).

The legislative framework as such offers the legal basis and the justifications de iure for interventions. However, in order to be effective real-life interventions are needed. To give an example: To abuse a child, to sell such images via the Internet and to consume them are criminal acts in the Member States, but the criminalisation as such does not prevent a certain number of persons from taking such images and hosting them on servers. In order to fight such pictures reporting is necessary (supported by awareness campaigns), police action is needed (which may be required to work smoothly across national borders), blocking of such content on the side of the ISPs is asked for. All these elements and actors have to be brought together in a way that actions are efficient and effective. The Commission has a coordinating and enabling role in this.

3.2. Specific risks for children and young people

The risks children can encounter when they go online or use mobile phones depend on the kind of activities which they deploy. Children use online technologies for a variety of activities: Finding information for school work, read news, searching for information about hobbies/interests, playing games, participating in competitions and quizzes, downloading, listening and watching music and films, communicating with friends and getting new friends through own home pages, social networking sites, chats, instant messaging services, e-mail and mobile phones. In many cases they also create their own web sites posting personal information, images and opinions of themselves and others.

3.2.1. Exposure to harmful content

Exposure to harmful content can cause psychological trauma to children and lead to physical harm if a child is motivated to inflict harm on other children or on him/herself.

The 2007 Eurobarometer study states that "children often cited this risk... It is confirmed here that a good number of them are disturbed, bothered and in some cases sometimes traumatised by it"[36]. The content most frequently mentioned refers to pornographic images. According to the study "almost all the children questioned seem to have been exposed to them." Furthermore "scenes of extreme violence or torture" are "very often cited… Some children say they are upset by them on a long-term basis." Furthermore, to a lesser extent, “racist” or “Nazi” sites are cited in the context of the study.

In 2003, 44 % of the children who used the Internet had visited a pornographic Web site by accident or on purpose. 25 % has received pornographic material through the Internet. 30 % of the children had seen websites with violent material, while only 15 % of the parents thought their children had seen this[37].

According to the 2005 Eurobarometer survey, 18% of European parents of children aged 17 and younger said that their child had encountered harmful or illegal content on the Internet. Although in the 15 “old” Member States, awareness levels increased significantly since the previous survey, 44% of parents stated that they would like more information about how to protect their child from illegal and harmful content and contact[38].

3.2.2. Disclosure of personal information

Children are often interacting with other users in the online environment and generating content. When generating content, such as creating their own web site, they tend to post personal information , images and opinions of themselves and others, as well as phone numbers and e-mail addresses. This material is in some cases used by offenders for identifying and locating a child offline or it may cause financial and security risks.

3.2.3. Bullying and cyber-bullying

Bullying can start in the school yard, but it can rapidly move into the sphere of online technology: both the exclusion of peers from online networks and the active harassment takes place on the Internet and through mobile phones.

Cyber-bullying is a severe form of harmful conduct, it "can be particularly distressing, as often there is no escape for the victim; the bullying has a potentially enormous audience, thus extending the humiliation and embarrassment of the victim. It is difficult to stop abusive content spreading and reappearing, which may make it difficult for the victim to move on from the incident, particularly if they do not know who the aggressor is"[39]. It is particularly insidious as it can follow young people wherever they go. "In some cases the degree of bullying or psychological ill-treatment may lead to genuine and, in some cases, dramatic disorders"[40]. The harm caused by cyber-bullying may be even greater than traditional bullying as online communications can be extremely vicious, as it can be done anonymously so that the victim may not know anymore whom to trust. In the school context there are reports of cyber-bullying leading to suicide, school violence, school failure, and school avoidance (overall in the UK).

Children also take photos and films with their mobile phones, sometimes without a peer knowing about it, and post it online or send to other mobile phones. There are known examples of people, not only children, being beaten up for the sake of filming, which can be posted online or sent through mobile phones, a phenomenon called "happy slapping".

A recent study in the UK showed that up to 34% of 12-15 year old children and young people had experienced some form of cyber-bullying. "There is also growing concern from teaching unions that school staff is increasingly becoming the victims of cyber-bullying"[41].

It appears that the actions taken up to now in fighting cyber-bullying need to be more effective.

3.2.4. Advertising and high expenditure

Children are easy targets for advertising and for people with commercial interests. They sometimes give away too much personal information, and may as a result receive vast amounts of spam or enter into agreements where the terms are not clear, this again might cause them to get a high expenditure.

3.2.5. Security risks

Security risks may cause harm to the computer or to the programmes on the computer, and might even allow somebody to steal your identity and money. Security risks are often caused by viruses entering the computer through a downloaded file, online games, spam mails or hacking (people breaking into your security system). Security risks are as important for adult users of online technologies as for children, and users thus risk breaching security. Even though the effect can be serious for the owner of the computer, the effect/consequence on the child is limited.

3.2.6. Evaluation of information sources

Many children use Internet as a tool for searching information concerning school tasks. Online content may be produced by anybody, even children themselves. Research has shown that even though many parents trust that their children know how to value information they find online, many children do not know this. Again, a critical sense regarding trustworthy information online is something that has to be learned and trained at.

3.2.7. Downloading and copyright infringement

Downloading films, music and games from Internet sources is a popular activity for children as well as for adults. In many cases, this happens through sites providing possibilities for exchange of files between individual users of the Internet, so called file sharing. Games and competitions, ring tones for mobile phones and images can be downloaded from a variety of Internet sites. "Downloading music, films, videos, games or other files is especially widespread in the older groups (12-14 years) of both sexes but with a predominance among boys"[42].

In some cases, the downloaded files contain viruses and worms and in this way impose security risks to the computer and the network. In some cases, the downloaded files disguise harmful and/or illegal content .

Sharing music and films online is in many cases associated with infringement of copyright laws . The recent Eurobarometer study concludes that "in the vast majority of cases, across all countries, children know that most of the downloads are illegal, but they minimise, deny or justify the practice. Whether it is “illegal” or not is not always clear"[43].

3.2.8. Grooming

In 2003, in a report covering 4 European countries, 4 out of 10 children who had chatted on the Internet said that people they had only met on the net had asked to meet them in person. 14% of the children had met someone offline that they first met on the Internet, while only 4 % of the parents thought the children had done so[44].

Adults of all ages who target children for sexual abuse are active online, and take advantage of the fact that children easily trust other people and that they are relatively willing to disclose personal information. The process by which a person befriends a child with the intent to abuse him/her is called "grooming" , and the term is used in particular for online activities. Abusers sometimes target children through the relative privacy of the Internet and mobile phones by pretending to be children themselves, or by befriending vulnerable children in the online environment; on chats, through social networking sites and dating sites.

There is noticeable lack of statistics and hard data on the numbers of children ensnared through grooming, be it on national or EU levels[45]. A recent study in the UK speaks of "one third of 9-19 year olds daily and weekly users have received unwanted sexual… comments online or by text message"[46]. This does, however, not describe the specific situation of a grooming process.

Grooming has severe consequences on children. Research shows that children seldom disclose to their parents or other adults about such contact and even in the cases where the contact is stopped before the abuse has taken place, sexual encounters/conversations online can be very disturbing for the child. In some cases, the abuser does not target the child with sexual conversation, but tries to get close to the child by responding to his/ her personality and interests, being the child's best friend. If abuse takes place, the effect on the child is very serious and deeply traumatizing. Since grooming implies befriending the child, the child experiences a severe breach of trust and sometimes great disappointment that a person they trust actually has hurt them.

There is also a noticeable lack of awareness in Member State authorities and the public about the severity and frequency of this severe form of harmful conduct.

3.2.9. Child sexual abuse material

Internet has also become one of the main distribution channels for material (images, films, audio files etc) depicting sexual abuse of children . Despite increased efforts in the international community aimed at reducing the production and online dissemination of sexual abuse material, the amount of material distributed does not seem to decrease. This material can be produced in a variety of ways and in a variety of circumstances, in some cases involving online grooming techniques, in other involving domestic abuse.

New figures from the UK-based Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) 2006 Annual Report, launched 17 April 2007, show the severity of online child abuse content is increasing, with a four-fold rise in images depicting the most severe abuse, such as penetrative and sadistic sexual activity. Domestic images are replacing commercially made ones. This trend reflects an apparent growing demand for purchasing more severe images with nearly 60 per cent of commercial child abuse websites selling child rape images. 29 per cent of all potentially illegal child abuse URLs known to the IWF contains the most severe abuse[47]. "The trend is frightening and requires concerted action"[48]. There is also a decrease in the age of abused children and an increase in the number of new abused children[49]. Even babies (rape) are presented.

The Internet Watch Foundation has estimated that the number of sites with this type of illegal material has increased with 1500 percent in the period 1997-2005.

The ways of online dissemination seem to diversif y. It seems furthermore that there is a trend to host child abuse images more and more outside the EU, for example such pictures are hardly found any more on German servers[50]; such material is furthermore increasingly disseminated through the web 2.0, but there is little knowledge and no reliable figures on the size of this problem.

The consequences for the children abused and depicted in the material are severe, and only a percentage of the children have been identified and rescued from the abusive situation. Interpol's Child Abuse Image Database contains 550.000 images of 20.000 individual children. Of these, only around 500 of these children have been identified and rescued in the time since the establishment of the database in 2001[51].

The public consultation called therefore for a more robust programme, with more resources deployed.

3.2.10. Video games

Playing games is one of the most popular online activities for European children[52]. Games may be played offline with one or more children present in the same place, but online gaming using game consoles or personal computers connected to the Internet is increasing.[53] The discussions about the effects on children of playing video games (encompassing both online and offline games) are diverse. The risks to children include health risks, like addiction and loss of physical health due to time spent in inaction, an augmented and unrealistic view of the world around them and anti-social behaviour. However, the most pronounced worry is the risk that children become more aggressive and start engaging in aggressive behaviour as a consequence of playing games.

Although there are cases where a link has been found between playing violent video games and violent and aggressive behaviour, a consensus does not exist in this area. A recent survey[54] showed that although parents are worried about the risk of the harmful effects of potentially harmful content in games, the players of games themselves and the games industry do not perceive violence in games to make game players less sensitive to real-world violence, and they claim not to loose touch with the real world. In many cases, violence in games is seen as no worse than the violence experienced through TV or films. However, the study also shows that many of the young users (below 15) are disturbed by the violence, in particular the bloody deaths, as well as the fact that the characters that kill the most people win.

The gaming industry operating offline has adopted a rating system (PEGI) which rates games according to content (appropriate age, bad language, violence, sexual content etc). This system has also been adapted to the online gaming world and some new game consoles include blocking devices. However, since parents are not always aware of the risks and possibilities for reducing the risks concerning children's use of online games, information to parents (awareness-raising) is important.

Another risk associated to online video games is related to contact with potential abusers. Already, many games combined features of social networking and gaming, and there are likely to be more in the future. For more on this issue, see section 3.2.8.

In order to assess possible actions to deal with the potential harmfulness of online and offline games to children, more knowledge is needed about this issue.

3.2.11. Risks related to new technologies and new forms of communication

The World Wide Web has evolved over the last two years to become an increasingly dynamic and interactive platform. Social networking (the term cover also the so-called chatrooms) is one of the new phenomena in the online world."Social networking and user interactive services are now a hugely popular and a compelling activity for many Internet users. These services are considered to be part of a paradigm shift in the evolution of the Internet, which is now frequently referred to as Web 2.0. Web 2.0 represents a fundamental shift away from this model, towards a more dynamic and interactive Internet where the creation of content is decentralised and more controlled by individuals or communities of users"[55].

For example, the number of visitors to a popular site "MySpace" increased from 4.9 million in 2005 to over 67 million in 2006[56].

Social networking sites brought together on a single site diverse "interactive technologies that previously had to be accessed separately or independently: chat, search, email, messaging, blogs, videos and so on. Together they have created a new type of social space where the risks to children and young people are manifested in new and different ways"[57], even if the risks which children are confronted to are largely identical with those already identified in the previous sections. "Potential risks to children and young people using social networking services can include but are not limited to:

- bullying by peers and ‘friends’;

- exposure to inappropriate and/or harmful content;

- posting illegal or inappropriate content;

- posting personal information that can identify and locate a child offline;

- sexual grooming, exploitation and abuse through contact with strangers;

- exposure to information about self–harm techniques or encouraging anorexia and suicide;

- race hatred;

- glorifying activities such as drug taking or excessive drinking;

- encouragement of violent behaviour such as ‘Happy Slapping’[58];

- physical harm to young people in making video content, such as enacting and imitating stunts and risk taking activities such as playing ‘Chicken’ on railways; and

- leaving and running away from home as a result of contacts made online"[59].

Another new phenomenon is the young people’s use of webcams - a new and growing concern. Webcams raise challenges for the safety of young internet users. In a number of cases young people have been intimidated or manipulated into recording images of themselves using webcams and sending them to individuals they meet online. Children and young people may use the Internet to engage in cyber-flirting or cyber-sex with their online ‘friends’.

Both behaviours can cause various threats . Recent investigations conducted on young persons between the ages of 13 and 19, reveals that a high percentage of girls have been requested "to do something sexual in front of a webcam"[60]. A possible consequence can be that this may lead to real-life meetings for sexual abuse (e.g. images used for coercion).

3.2.12. Risks related to mobile phone use

More and more children are using mobile phones . In some European countries, the use of mobile phones by children is greater than their use of Internet. The mobile phones are becoming more sophisticated, most of them carry cameras, and some allow for accessing Internet. The risks concerning mobile phone use are the same as for use of other online technologies like the Internet: high expenditure, bullying, grooming, and exposure to harmful content. However, the risks might become even more pronounced as the mobile phones is seen as even more private than Internet use.

The results of the public consultation on "Child safety and mobile phone services" which the Commission (DG INFSO E.06) carried out between 25 July and 16 October 2006 underlines this: "There is a wide consensus that, along with all the benefits that mobile phones bring to young people, some risks exist. Main risks identified confirm the evaluation made in the consultation report: harassment and bullying, grooming and sexual discussions, mis-contracting with minors, access to chargeable content, fraud and spam, high expenses, exposure and access to illegal/harmful/adult content, pornography and violence and risks concerning children's privacy, in particular due to the inappropriate use of camera phones and location services"[61].

3.2.13. Health risks

There are concerns about the possible health risks linked to the excessive use of mobile phones. There is also worry about the possible impact that radiation emitted from mobile phones might have, in particular on children and young people.

Some children spend a lot of time in front of their computers or using their mobile phones, to play games or to gamble, and develop addiction to these activities. As a consequence, they may break contact with friends, spend less time on physical activities, and even drop out of school.

3.3. Who is affected? Target groups

Noticing that the risks for children in the online environment are great, and that they have increased during the years since 1996, the main target group of the proposed programme will be children and young people . But it is not only the children who need to be addressed:

- Parents, carers, including medical staff and therapists, teachers and other adults responsible for children have a special role in educating and supporting children and young people in how to stay safe online.

- State authorities, i.e. governments (national, regional and local), official bodies with responsibility for industry, education, consumer protection, families, children's rights and child welfare, law enforcement authorities (police, public prosecutors and judges), and regulators (media, data protection) are concerned with the issue of illegal and harmful content in different contexts.

- The industry is concerned as it has a strong interest from a business point of view in a safe environment engendering consumer confidence. At the same time content providers, technical intermediaries (including network operators and Internet Service Providers), mobile network operators, as well as industry self-regulatory bodies are typically interested in operating in an environment in which undue restrictions and the burdens of regulation do neither hamper their activities nor produce additional costs.

Industry already plays, and will increasingly come to play, an important role in helping to provide solutions for a safer and more trustworthy environment because of their expertise, their technical role in provision of services and their contacts with end-users. Network operators, for example, have a clear technical capacity to identify and prevent risk situations for children, but also manufacturers of software could make their products safer.

- A variety of non-governmental organisations are working on issues related to child safety online. These are organisations active in the fields of consumer protection, families, children's rights, child welfare and civil society issues. Other activists are concerned at the implications for civil liberties of measures taken to restrict circulation of content or access to content, particularly where measures taken ostensibly to restrict access by children to potentially harmful content also restrict access by adults to content which is legal for them.

- Finally universities and research institutes do investigations in fields which improve our knowledge base, as for example understanding better how children use online technologies, how the education can be efficiently organized, how perpetrators operate and the way they use online technologies. Furthermore, they can investigate new technical safety solutions and technology-enhanced support systems for crime investigation etc.

4. OBJECTIVES

4.1. General objective and Specific objectives

The envisaged new programme has the general objective to protect children better against risks which can manifest when using the Internet and other communication technologies.

Based on the consultation process, the lessons learned from the past (especially those derived from programme evaluations and Eurobarometer) and the risks for children identified, the envisaged initiative will have the following 4 specific objectives :

- Reducing illegal content and tackling harmful conduct online

- Promoting a safer online environment

- Ensuring public awareness

- Establishing a knowledge base

Additional Operational objectives specify a series of targets which are expected to facilitate attainment of the above general goals:

4.2. Illegal content and harmful conduct/content

- Providing the public with contact points for reporting online illegal content and harmful conduct

- Dealing effectively with harmful conduct online, in particular grooming and bullying

- Stimulating development and application of technical solutions for dealing with illegal/harmful content and harmful conduct online

4.3. Promoting a safer environment online

- Encouraging industry engagement in creating a safer online environment by stimulating development and implementation of self-regulation systems

- Stimulating cooperation between relevant stakeholders concerning promoting a safer environment and tackling harmful content

4.4. Awareness-raising

- Empowering users to stay safe online

- Providing the public with a coordinated and effective effort to raise awareness and to disseminate information about risks and safety measures

- Stimulating enhancement and development of awareness raising methods and tools concerning online safety

- Stimulating the involvement of children and young people in creating a safer online environment

4.5. Establishing a knowledge-base

- Encouraging a co-ordinated approach concerning investigation across the EU with a view to increasing child safety online

- Ensuring stable knowledge of updated information concerning children's use of online technologies and the subsequent risks

- Broadening knowledge concerning children's own strategies for dealing with online-related risks

- Promoting studies on online-related sexual exploitation of children

4.6. All actions

- Enhancing co-operation, exchange of information, experience and best practice between relevant stakeholders on EU and international level.

The (specific and operational) objectives take the lessons learned / recommendations described in section 1.3 in the following way into account:

- The objective "Providing the public with contact points for reporting online illegal content and harmful conduct" (section 4.2) takes up the recommendations to provide "the public with contact points for reporting online illegal content and harmful conduct" and (in combination with enhanced awareness raising; section 4.4) "to increase the visibility of hotlines in public";

- The recommendations "to devote a higher proportion of the programme budget to awareness raising" and to "focus awareness-raising more on specific target groups, especially … to address children, parents or teachers" are integrated into the objectives under section 4.4 ("Empowering users to stay safe online", "stimulating … development of awareness raising methods and tools", "providing the public with a coordinated and effective effort to raise awareness…");

- The recommendations "to focus awareness-raising more on specific target groups, especially to pursue tailored strategies to address children, parents or teachers" and "to focus more on children under 10 …" are specifically taken up in the objectives under section 4.4 of "stimulating the involvement of children and young people in creating a safer online environment" and of "stimulating … development of awareness raising methods and tools"; and under section 4.5 ("Ensuring stable knowledge of updated information concerning children's use of online technologies and the subsequent risks");

- The recommendations "to provide information through channels to suit the needs of the parents and the age of the children (schools, ISPs, media)" and "to promote more active involvement by the media in awareness campaigns" is introduced into the objectives "Stimulating cooperation between relevant stakeholders concerning promoting a safer environment and tackling harmful content" (section 4.3) and "Providing the public with a coordinated and effective effort to raise awareness and to disseminate information about risks and safety measures" (section 4.4). The first takes also the recommendations "to facilitate discussion among national administrations … on school education concerning safer use of online technologies" up;

- The objective of "Stimulating cooperation between relevant stakeholders concerning promoting a safer environment and tackling harmful content" corresponds to the recommendation of encouraging "wider involvement of ISPs and other relevant industry players";

- "To encourage industry self-regulatory solutions at European level…codes of conduct, content labelling and rating systems" (recommendation) is taken up in the objective (section 4.3): to foster "industry engagement in … development and implementation of self-regulation systems";

- "Age verification systems" (recommendation) fall under the objective "stimulating development and application of technical solutions" (section 4.2), "to develop actions taking account of changing risk situations…" (recommendation) is introduced into the objectives under section 4.2 ("Dealing effectively with harmful conduct online, in particular grooming and bullying") and 4.5, specifically the objective of creating "stable knowledge of updated information concerning children's use of online technologies and the subsequent risks";

- The recommendation "to continue to engage with actors external to the European Union" is introduced into "all actions" (section 4.6).

5. STRATEGIC POLICY OPTIONS

5.1. Formulation of policy options

The aim of the following analysis is to identify the option which offers a convincing / the best range of expected effects (impact) which at the same time can be achieved in a cost-efficient way. When assessing the alternative options, the question will be whether the same effects (the same impact) could be achieved by a lower cost by using a different approach or other instruments.

There are many possible ways to address the issues relating to child safety online and the risks for children. Hence, divers options can be imagined, but they always will respond to two basic approaches: either to limit actuation to certain areas (vertical approach) or to strive for a cross-cutting solution which covers all / as many as possible areas but at different levels of intensity (horizontal approach).

As regards the vertical approach a possible option is that the Commission limits itself to stimulating self-regulatory solutions in the industries, especially as there are some indications of promising results in reducing illegal content and the access to it. The need to enhance such agreements and the positive role which the Commission can play in this respect has been highlighted in the past evaluations. However, self-regulation would definitely not tackle all the risks and challenges by itself. Self-regulation can be part of the solution but within the given limitations only. Many of the issues in the field of internet safety go beyond the reach of industries and require the participation of organisations which have specific missions. This applies for example to the role of schools in media education or of child care organisations in counselling, advising and supporting children, their parents and other caretakers. Furthermore, it should be noticed that the actuation of industry players can be hampered by conflicting interests in the market.

A basic lesson learned during the implementation of the preceding programmes, a basic conclusion in past evaluations is that any policy for the fight against illegal content, to protect children from illegal and harmful content and from illegal and harmful forms of conduct must, due to the nature of the subject-matter, be of a multi-faceted nature. To be truly effective, several measures and actions will have to be combined in a complementary way, such as creating reporting facilities which cooperate with law enforcement, awareness-raising and empowerment of children as users of these technologies, self-regulatory elements or the setting up of structures for cooperation between different stakeholders. For this reason the " lessons learned " (section 1.3), the recommendations and conclusions of the evaluations and the Eurobarometer findings opt for the horizontal approach, address a variety of divers issues and underline the roles of multiple stakeholders, such as to enhance the Hotlines' cooperation with the police, to put efforts in more effective and intensive awareness raising, to involve the media more systematically, to facilitate discussion among national administrations or to promote technological tools like age verification systems.

For this reason the services responsible for this impact assessment has decided to formulate options on the basis of the horizontal approach as this appears to be the appropriate way to respond to the lessons learned, the recommendations of previous evaluations and the objectives formulated on this basis. Each of the chosen options therefore deals with all risks (with the exception of option 4 which is a single case); the options do not imply a pre-selection of risks. The options differ essentially in the intensity with which they tackle the risks identified in section 3.2 (exception: option 4), and in which they respond to the given objectives, to "lessons learned" and in the costs of the proposed measures.

The objective of the Impact Assessment is to identify the option which could offer the best balance between a convincing range of impacts on the protection of children and economic effects including cost-efficiency.

The Commission services have therefore considered the following four options:

- Option 1 : Make no change - continue activities in this area as set out in the Safer Internet plus programme 2005 – 2008 without any modification

- Option 2 : Modify - adjust the scope of current activities and add new activities to deal with new risks and to enhance effectiveness

- Option 3 : Slow down - reduce the scale of activities

- Option 4 : Stop - cease activities completely

The main instruments which could be considered (except for Option 4) are provision of (co-) funding for projects by the Commission and the enhancement of activities to promote best practices and of divers initiatives (e.g. encouragement of self-regulatory initiatives at European level, organisation of stakeholder meetings, studies), which may be (co-) funded or not.

Legislative action is not considered under any of the options as a variety of legislative instruments already exist (see chapter 1.2 and Annex 1) covering well the field of online child protection.

5.2. Analysis of the impact of the policy options

The basis for the assessment of the chosen policy options is the risk analysis: there are a significant number of dangers to which children using online technologies can be confronted. Regarding the 4 chosen policy actions, the questions to be analysed in each case will be: how effective would the option be in protecting children using online technologies (positive impact)? To which extend can the objectives set be reached? Are there possible negative impacts, such as additional administration costs or negative economic impact?

Regarding the assessment of options, the most important impacts fall into the category of social impacts – i.e. on-line safety and security of children, awareness raising, fight against illegal content. The assessment is based on available evidence, such as experience from the previous programmes, independent evaluations of the previous programmes, input from the public consultation, Eurobarometer and other studies, etc. Most impacts are inherently difficult to quantify, also due to the lack of availability of comparable data and figures (as pointed out in the problem definition section). However, despite this problem, the main impacts can still be determined and options compared in a qualitative manner.

The key criteria of analysis considered are impact on reducing illegal content and harmful content online, impact on public awareness, impact on third countries and impact on new on-line risks and challenges. Cost-effectiveness of measures and economic impacts are also considered.

It should be noted that none of the proposed options affects the rights of privacy and freedom of expression . It is common to all options (with the exception of option 4, which is a special case) that the network reporting points assess each reported case against the national legal situation. If the content reported is illegal (ex.: child sexual abuse) it is forwarded to the competent law enforcement authority which decides on the next steps. If the content is harmful but in conflict with the national law regulating childrens' access to it they take the appropriate action following the national provisions. The same applies for awareness activities on harmful content/conduct which aim at user-empowerment, i.e. empowerment for making better choices and for taking appropriate actions for protecting themselves. Filters are meant for parents to install on private PCs. They can filter "too" much thus reducing the possible choice; this is the reason why the envisaged programme puts an eye on this – to avoid this disturbing side-effect. Self-regulation is aiming at children not at adults and moves within the limits of youth protection regulations (e.g. mobile phones which block certain functions for children). Filter tools allow adults to de-activate them when desired, thus the adults remain in full control of their filtering effect.

5.3. General policy option 1: Make no change

Continue activities in this area as set out in the Safer Internet plus programme 2005 – 2008 without any modification

This option is the baseline scenario against which the impacts of the other options will be compared. It implies to propose an extension of the existing Safer Internet plus Programme with unchanged scope and actions. It would aim at ensuring continuity of the aquis achieved. The 4 actions / strands of the Safer Internet plus Programme would continue. These actions are characterized as follows:

Action 1 (Fighting against illegal content) builds on a system of Hotlines which allow citizens to report illegal content. The Hotlines pass the reports on to the appropriate body (Internet Service Providers (ISP), police, correspondent Hotline) for action. In order for the Hotlines to develop their full potential, Europe-wide coverage and cooperation, increased effectiveness through exchange of information, best practice and experience, is ensured. The Hotline network structure contributes to this. Links between this network and Hotlines in third countries (particularly in other European countries where illegal content is hosted and produced) shall be promoted, enabling common approaches to be developed and know-how and best practice to be transferred. Hotlines should be linked to Member State initiatives and be supported at national level.

Action 2 (Tackling unwanted and harmful content) focuses on technological tools and self-regulatory actions. The effectiveness of available filtering technology shall be better investigated and better information on the performance of filtering software and services which allow users to make an informed choice be promoted. Rating systems and quality labels can help to enable users to select the content. Funding can be given to projects which aim to adapt rating systems and quality labels to take account of the convergence of telecommunications, audio-visual media and information technology. When developing new technologies, the safety of the end-user should be better taken into account; an exchange of views between child welfare specialists and technical experts shall be fostered.

Action 3 (Promoting a Safer environment) focuses on the enhancement of new activities for making the Internet a safer place, especially by stimulating systems of self-regulation considered as an essential element in limiting the flow of unwanted content. The Safer Internet Forum has an essential role in this respect being a meeting place for actors from all areas, including government agencies and programmes, law enforcement authorities, standards bodies, industry, user organisations (e.g. parent and teacher organisations, child protection groups, consumer protection bodies and civil and digital rights organisations). It specifically provides a platform for national co-regulatory or self-regulatory bodies to exchange experience and an opportunity to discuss ways in which industry can contribute to the fight against illegal content.

Action 4 (Awareness-raising) shall address a range of categories of illegal, unwanted and harmful content (including, for example, content considered unsuitable for children and racist and xenophobic content) as well as new forms of interactive information and communication brought about by the Internet and mobile telephony (peer-to-peer services, broadband video, instant messaging, chatrooms, etc.). Awareness raising activities will be run by a network of awareness-raising nodes in each Member State and candidate country. European added value is provided by a coordinating node, which ensures effective communication, information flow and exchange of best practice between the nodes. It will offer technical assistance and training, build an infrastructure for a single transnational repository (web portal) of relevant information and expand links with awareness-raising activities outside Europe.

By assembling the different network functions (Hotline, awareness nodes, helplines) under single roofs, synergies will be better exploited.

5.3.1. Social impacts

The recent evaluation reports on the preceding programmes (see Annex 2) have recognized the positive impacts of the preceding programmes on the society.

Through providing funding for Hotlines (Action 1)[62], the Commission "has made a significant contribution to combating illegal content"[63]; the number of reports sent to the police by national hotlines has been increasing steadily. [64] The social impact of ongoing Hotline network operation would therefore be high; further web sites offering illegal content would be closed down. By reinforcing the measures envisaged under the Commission's Cybercrime Communication in the area of Internet-based child abuse, it would help to stimulate cooperation between law enforcers and prosecutors across the EU and to use resources more efficiently.

The surveying of technological tools (Action 2), a continued focus on improving their effectiveness and of promoting them in public are expected to have a positive impact on the uptake and efficiency of parental control tools and would thus help to reduce children's access to content harmful to them.

Following the evaluation reports, self-regulatory initiatives (Action 3) instigated by the Commission have been successful.[65] The framework agreement concluded with leading European mobile operators (see section 1) would continue to be monitored under Option 1[66] and other industry sectors would be encouraged to negotiate similar agreements. This would have a positive impact in limiting children's access to harmful content.

The evaluation reports underline the key importance of awareness-raising (Action 4) and highlight the role of the Commission in launching initiatives across Europe. The recent Eurobarometer figures (see section 1) underline the impact already generated by the preceding programmes and it is likely that keeping the activities at the same levels would continue to raise the awareness of parents, teachers, children and other relevant stakeholders.

A secondary effect of Option 1 could possibly be a slow tendency to further adapt national laws towards common standards and definitions.

Also in the public consultation it was made clear that the stakeholders believe that "efforts so far in the fight against illegal content had been positive and successful", at the same time fearing "that these good results would be jeopardized if the fight against illegal content were to cease after 2008. There was almost universal agreement that the fight against harmful, as distinct from illegal, content also needs to continue"[67].

Option 1 is therefore expected to generate considerable social impacts. However, online technologies and their use are in continuous progress: cyber-bullying, grooming, new ways of disseminating sexual abuse material, evolving communication features in the co-called "Web 2.0" are expressions of a cyber world undergoing rapid changes. Option 1 does not provide sufficient means to deal with them.

Furthermore, in order to meet these new challenges the policies need to be continuously up-to-dated and increased. Some policies might also be pre-emptive (for example: chat rooms and social networking sites are increasingly used for grooming and for opening distribution channels for child abuse images). In order to develop effective and timely counter-strategies, investigation on behavioural and psychological aspects would be necessary and activities reinforced in order to deal with the increasing risks to children online. Currently there is a noticeable lack of European comparative facts and figures, of robust statistics; ongoing investigations on Member State level are not coordinated within the EU and lack of comparability. Option 1 does neither provide the basis for this.

Maintaining the pressure on illegal content could make certain activities, specifically the production and dissemination child abuse images, move outside of the EU. Such an effect would call for tighter international cooperation between the EU and third countries, which is not granted under Option 1.

There is a general tendency towards an increasing online-related child abuse and also towards more domestic production of child abuse images in the EU. The fight against the online dissemination of child sexual abuse images may stop some commercial child abuse activities but - negatively - may bolster the trend to more domestic production of such images. Such abuse causes even more harm to children as it involves normally family members as predators. These general tendencies can only be reversed by putting more efforts into multi-faceted counter-strategies addressing any form of such child abuse: the pressure on any predator and consumer must not only be maintained but needs to be increased. Option 1 does not go beyond the current counter-strategies.

Regarding possible impacts on the rights of privacy and freedom of expression it is referred to section 5.2.

5.3.2. Economic impacts

Option 1 will help to create a climate of confidence which will promote the use of online technologies and so enhance the economic benefits that greater access to these technologies will bring to society.

The economic benefits of the programme have been demonstrated by the support given by industry to the activities of the preceding programmes. For instance, mobile industry and Internet Service Providers can have an interest to reduce the chances of “collateral damage” to minors where they are able to access content not intended for them with the resulting bad publicity. They therefore have a clear interest in co-operating to develop measures which empower parents to protect minors against harmful content. It is nevertheless difficult to give any figures on “return on investment” since the areas chosen tend to be those which do not have a direct economic return.

On the cost-avoiding side it must be taken into account that the preventive protection of children helps to avoid costs in the health security and social / youth support systems which are caused by the treatment of psychological trauma etc.

Few negative economic impacts can be foreseen, with the possible exception of negative economic impacts for 3rd countries, as Option 1 would maintain the pressure on criminal activities related to child abuse so that some activities may move there as a result. Such effects have already been noted as in a number of Member States the amount of child abuse images on servers has been reduced considerably. Consequently, it appears that such content has moved to servers in 3rd countries. This is certainly primarily the effect of a number of successful and far-reaching law enforcement cases in the recent years. But, it can be assumed that also the preceding Safer Internet programmes have contributed to this effect to some extent, even if this impact is neither measurable nor has been investigated so far. The only way to mitigate these effects is to intensify international cooperation with third countries. Option 1 includes international cooperation, but these activities would need to be further developed.

5.3.3. Costs for public administration

The current annual average budget available under Safer Internet plus is of 11.25 million Euros. Option 1 would lead to a slightly reduced annual impact on the Community budget (10.25 million Euros).

The reason for this is that the effectiveness of the administration / management of the envisaged programme within the Commission would be enhanced by making the current structure (the model of the Safer Internet plus programme) of the European networks (providing hotline services, awareness nodes and helpline facilities) more effective. Network relays which currently combine different services and functionalities would gather these under one roof in the Member States. This would also reduce the administrative burden for the Commission service. In comparison to the current situation the staff could be reduced by 2 persons (total: 10 persons). The total administration costs within the Commission for 5 years duration are estimated at 6,964,000 €.

The option does not impose administrative burdens on private sector or national public bodies. . Direct costs for the public administration in the Member States are not associated with this option. Indirect costs may appear if the Member States governments decided to co-fund activities such as the running of awareness nodes and Hotlines. This is, however, not an obligation under any of the options discussed here.

5.3.4. Degree of coherence with policy objectives

Option 1 would meet the majority of objectives outlined above. It would fail inasmuch as new pro-active and preventive strategies depend on a reliable knowledge base and increased efforts, for instance in the fight against new dissemination channels for online illegal content. The same applies for more effective awareness-raising methods (designed with input from the knowledge base), most recent relevant information for the public (as much as new trends and behaviours need to be understood better, as for example the grooming process), the better understanding of perpetrator conduct and the impact and risks of existing and emerging technologies.

5.3.5. Added value and respect of the subsidiarity principle

Option 1 complies with the principle of subsidiarity; this comprises different aspects:

- In some Member States, the programme links in with national programmes comparable to Option 1 in terms of scope and remit. In a number of cases, these have been clearly inspired by the Safer Internet Action Plan 1999 - 2004.

- In other Member States, there is still a need for more developed and structured forms of co-operation. The issues cuts across traditional boundaries between ministries - Justice, Home Affairs, Industry, Culture, Education, Family and Social Affairs -depending on how ministerial portfolios are distributed. In decentralized states, the competences are likely to be split between national and regional levels.

- In further Member States there is still the need to enhance the development of more systematic and effective policies in this area.

- Option 1 will certainly give the necessary additional impetus to setting up new forms of co-operation (e.g. co-operation between law-enforcement and industry).

Coordination of cross-border cooperation adds a clear European value, specifically by spreading knowledge of best practices and by making sure that resources are well used. Taking into account the strong cross-border character of the Internet this applies for example for the effective running of the Hotlines, Helplines and Awareness networks or the promotion of the best performing technologies.

A more detailed analysis of the added value and the way the subsidiarity principle has been respected is presented in section 8.1. In order to avoid repetitions it is referred to this section.

5.3.6. Feasibility

The preceding programmes, which are the basis for Option 1, have proved to be feasible. The SIAP, which is being continued by the Safer Internet plus Programme, was conceived by all stakeholders as a relevant and effective programme which should continue. The European Union is seen as a pioneer within this field (see section 1) and the launching of hotlines and the development of awareness nodes in Member States is seen as major achievement[68].

5.3.7. Conclusion

Option 1 is viable and will, based on past experience, generate a considerable number of impacts, especially of a social nature as it would be an important ongoing instrument to reduce the risks for children online. The costs are nearly identical to those in the preceding programme and also the impact is expected to be of the same dimension.

However, it would also imply shortcomings when dealing with changing and emerging uses and behaviours leading to new risk situations and which would require specific and more intensive efforts to be taken and additional counter-strategies to be developed.

5.4. General policy option 2: Modify

Adjust the scope of current activities and add new activities to deal with new risks and to enhance effectiveness

This option would mean to further develop a coherent strategy for the fight against harmful effects of online technologies at EU-level. It would consist of two basic elements: to continue with the activities developed and implemented under the preceding programmes (the baseline scenario) and to gather momentum and to enhance a set of new actions which are envisaged to meet new challenges.

Existing activities which have proved to be successful would be strengthened and reinforced (gathering momentum) aiming at further improving their effectiveness and their impact. Such actions would namely be:

- Reducing illegal content by enhancing efficiency and effectiveness of the existing networks (the contact points for reporting illegal content); enlarging their coverage (EU-27); this is Action 1 of the baseline scenario

- Initiating the creation of new self-regulatory systems, as for example for ISPs, in view of a safer online environment (Action 2 of the baseline scenario)

- Enhancing the development and uptake of technical tools (Action 2 of the baseline scenario)

- The Safer Internet Forum (Action 3 of the baseline scenario) with a view to stimulating new activities of and between stakeholders

- Awareness-raising, improving awareness-raising methods and tools by identifying, enhancing and disseminating effective and cost-efficient awareness-raising methods (Action 4 of the baseline scenario)

- Enhancing global international cooperation, particularly by making existing international instruments more efficient and by stimulating the development and implementation of actions in the relevant fields (all actions of the baseline scenario) .

The tackling of new phenomena which are due to developing technologies and societal developments would require introducing new features under this option. Option 2 will give specific and more intensive attention to these areas, such as it has been expressed in the evaluation recommendations (see section 1.3 "Lessons learnt"), specifically in the recommendation "to develop actions taking account of changing risk situations (e.g. chat-rooms, Instant Messaging Services, peer-to-peer technologies)".

Such new features / actions which go beyond the baseline scenario would namely be:

- Tackling harmful conduct online, especially grooming, cyber-bullying

- Stimulating the involvement of children and young people in creating a safer online environment

- Establishing a knowledge base which would allow a better understanding on how actually children use online technologies and how risk situations develop - continuously updated in order to keep pace with fast changing technologies and services. It would open European-wide access to aggregated data and include a EU-level coordination of investigation activities. This could cover general areas for investigation (for example the way risks evolve into actual harm to children; the precise nature of harmful consequences or the identification of the types of websites which attract both children and potential abusers); Child-specific studies (for example the identification of the most vulnerable groups of children targeted for online abuse, the psycho-social impact on children; behavioural differences in use between age groups; the relationship between young people’s sexuality and online grooming; the profiling of risk-taking online behaviour by different groups of children; the children’s use of technology such as web cameras and cell phones); and Offender-related investigation (e.g. the ways in which sexual abuse is caused with the help of online technologies; understanding how offenders use online technologies to find and target children; the changing nature of grooming behaviour; the link between consumption of child abuse material and contact sexual abuse; the changing profiles of online child abusers)

- European comparative facts and figures, i..e. to establish more robust statistics (nationally and Europe-wide) concerning for example online sexual abuse and grooming[69]

- Developing strategies to protect children better in evolving environments such as social networking sites and chatrooms.

The option would, apart from the general objective of achieving an optimization of existing and additional means, furthermore envisage taking early-stage, pre-emptive actions against new developments which generate harmful effects of online technologies to children. Further information on the structure of the programme envisaged under Option 2 is given under Annex 2.

5.4.1. Social impacts

Those effects which have been described for Option 1 under the corresponding chapter fully apply. The social impacts of Option 2 would however go further than those.

By establishing a knowledge base the impact of digital convergence on the ways online technologies are used, on the changes in behaviour and on the development of interlinked risk situations would be better understood and allow to develop adequate counter-strategies. The knowledge base would also help to design pre-emptive measures.

Cyber-bullying needs more efficient prevention strategies, namely in the context of awareness-raising activities. Option 2 provides this.

Social networking sites confront children and young people to serious risk situations (such as bullying, inappropriate content, disclosure of personal information, grooming, glorifying harmful activities etc.; see section 4). Up to now too little has been done to deal with these risks. Access could for example be blocked for children, wherever adequate, by using (improved) age verific