OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on: - the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council concerning a multi-annual Community programme to stimulate the development of a European multimedia content industry and to encourage the use of multimedia content in the emerging information society (INFO 2000), and - the proposal for a Council Decision adopting a multi-annual Community programme to stimulate the development of a European multimedia content industry and to encourage the use of multimedia content in the emerging information society (INFO 2000)
Date: 1995-12-20
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU programme, communications industry, information industry, information policy













EUR-Lex - 51995AC1455 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51995AC1455

OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on: - the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council concerning a multi-annual Community programme to stimulate the development of a European multimedia content industry and to encourage the use of multimedia content in the emerging information society (INFO 2000), and - the proposal for a Council Decision adopting a multi-annual Community programme to stimulate the development of a European multimedia content industry and to encourage the use of multimedia content in the emerging information society (INFO 2000)  


Official Journal C 082 , 19/03/1996 P. 0036 





Opinion on: - the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council concerning a  multi-annual Community programme to stimulate the development of a European multimedia content  industry and to encourage the use of multimedia content in the emerging information society (INFO  2000), and- the proposal for a Council Decision adopting a multi-annual Community programme to  stimulate the development of a European multimedia content industry and to encourage the use of  multimedia content in the emerging information society (INFO 2000) ()(96/C 82/09)On 14   September 1995, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article   130 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned communication and  proposal. The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, which was responsible for preparing the  Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 29  November 1995. The Rapporteur was Mr   Pellarini. At its 331st Plenary Session (meeting of 21  December 1995), the Economic and Social Committee  adopted the following Opinion unanimously. 1. Introduction1.1. This programme, which follows on from the Impact programme, is  intended to encourage the development of new multimedia products (Multimedia: the mixing of text,  graphics, pictures, sound and other 'media' in a digital presentation) and services and to  stimulate demand for them: INFO 2000 will run from 1  January 1996 to 31  December 1999, with a  budget of ECU 100 million. 1.2. The information content industry is involved in print publishing (newspapers, books, general  publications, etc.), electronic publishing (databases, videotex and audiotex services, compact  discs, video games, etc.) and the audiovisual industry (television, radio, cinema). 1.3. The sector's 1994 turnover in the EU is estimated at some ECU 150 000 million, and it provided  jobs for more than 2 million people. 1.4. The programme lays down three 'action lines': - stimulating demand and raising public awareness; - exploiting Europe's public sector information; - triggering European multimedia potential. 2. General comments2.1. It is now universally acknowledged that the creation of a global  information infrastructure (GII) will have an impact on national economies, the market and  everyone's quality of life comparable to that of the industrial revolution on the agricultural  societies of the 18th century. 2.1.1. We must consider whether today's society is ready to accept the consequences of this  development, trusting only to spontaneous market reactions, or whether the process should be  flexibly managed and controlled. 2.1.2. This should be possible since in theory we now possess the knowledge, forecasting capacity  and technologically advanced means needed to draw up scenarios and outline models which provide a  reasonably accurate picture of the future and which can be constantly updated, enabling us to gain  a better understanding of the problems to be tackled. 2.2. Moreover, a number of pointers for more detailed consideration are forthcoming both from major  social actors such as trade unions, consumer associations and employers' organizations, and from  nations at the forefront of progress such as the USA and Japan. 2.2.1. While all these actors are united in concentrating on the prospects for job creation and  consequently on employment potential, they are also focussing, in line with their particular  outlooks and interests, on other issues such as the role of the public services in safeguarding  cultural heritages and ensuring genuinely universal services, access to information, privacy  protection, monitoring of user prices, stable rules on standardization, licensing arrangements,  fair competition conditions and intellectual property rights. 2.2.2. Following a period of great enthusiasm in which initiatives mushroomed, the USA is now  entering upon a more cautious phase, reflecting the continuing high level of uncertainty among  American companies on the question of regulation. 2.2.2.1. Further evidence of this is provided by the fact that some of the largest mergers ever  announced within the computer industry have not yet been finalized; furthermore, the planned reform  of telecommunications legislation has become bogged down. 2.2.3. In Japan, the monopoly stranglehold over the market exercised by NTT and KDD has not  generated an across-the-board decrease in costs and has slowed down the dissemination of new  services. 2.2.3.1. The Japanese Government has recently reacted by setting up a working group on information  policy, and favours mutual contacts, in particular with the EU. 2.3. The EU has set itself the objective of liberalizing all telecommunications infrastructures and  services by 1  January 1998. 2.3.1. At the same time, it has undertaken to adopt a legislative framework establishing a number  of shared principles concerning such areas as a universal service, the granting of licences, equal  competition conditions, standardization, the protection of intellectual property rights, the  protection of private life, etc. 2.3.2. Whilst it is true that this liberalizing process is an essential pre-condition to the  information society, at the same time the EU must give concrete evidence of its political will to  manage the process, firstly by rapidly establishing a legislative framework to meet the new  technological and commercial situation. This should be accompanied by multiannual Community  programmes designed to promote the development of the relevant sectors. 2.4. On 13  July 1995 the Commission set up a forum of European experts in the area, charged with  examining and commenting upon the various issues relating to the emerging information society. 2.4.1. These basically concern the impact on the organization of work, safeguarding democracy, the  quality and transparency of public services, copyright and privacy protection, freedom of access,  the cultural dimension, etc. 2.4.2. In practice, the forum's task - both ambitious and difficult - is to outline the possible  future scenarios for the information society and to highlight areas of potential, risks, obstacles  and strategic objectives, in order to guide the Commission in its action. 2.4.3. The themes discussed within the forum are of considerable political significance for the  definition of a legislative framework, and at the same time tie in with the objectives set out in  INFO 2000. 3. Comments on the INFO 2000 programme3.1. The ESC accepts the need to strengthen Community  programmes in the information and telecommunications sectors, with specific action on the content  industry, particularly in view of the huge potential offered by Europe's cultural values and  historic tradition, thanks to which it still - on the threshold of the 21st century - constitutes a  cultural, economic and social benchmark. 3.1.1. Nevertheless, these same features also represent a barrier to development and the adoption  of new cultural models based on increasing use of the new digital technologies, since even in a  single market, European citizens must still cope with a multilingual environment, diverse legal  systems, and significant differences in service costs and prices. 3.1.2. In this context, however, stimulating the multimedia content industry is a necessity which  should involve not only companies but also the public authorities, education, research and  individual citizens. 3.2. The stated objective of the Community's INFO 2000 programme is to take action complementary to  other Community programmes under the fourth Framework Programme, both in order to enhance the  European content industry's strong points, and to redress some of its weaknesses. 3.2.1. The long-term strategic objectives and action lines have been worded in a way which confirms  the project's basic assumptions: an increased concentration of objectives on the critical area of  developing the European content industry, rather than the information services system, which is  only one among the most important sectors. 3.3. In the light of the above, the Commission communication presenting the draft programme appears  unsatisfactory on at least four counts. 3.3.1. The Commission defines the content industry as one of the key dimensions of the information  society; it also outlines its structure in production and employment terms and describes the  important role it is set to assume in shaping future society. Having done this, however, it glosses  over the possible economic and social consequences of, for example, the influence the major  publishing groups may exert, of possible mass media concentration, or of the considerable  uncertainty as to whether truly pluralistic information can be safeguarded. 3.3.2. The document frequently uses such terms as liberalization, deregulation, competitiveness and  free competition, but rarely makes more than the most passing reference to the necessary rules, not  even in connection with the long-promised minimum legislative framework: this takes it virtually  for granted that the rules will be in place in good time. 3.3.2.1. This approach gives rise to some ambiguity: in fact, many of the programme's projects are  directed to studying rules and regulations (see, for example, copyright or intellectual property). 3.3.3. Turning to the scale of funding, simple division of the total amount between the number of  planned projects yields an average figure of some ECU  250 000 per project - a sum which is  self-evidently insufficient, although varying from project to project, and which unfortunately  points to the risk of a scatter-gun approach to distributing Community support. 3.4. A final, baffling point is the brevity of the draft Council Decision itself in contrast to the  copious annexes: thought needs to be directed towards the red tape involved and the wide margin of  discretion allowed in selecting individual projects. 4. Comments on the programme's action lines4.1. Further to the meagre overall funding mentioned  above, there is also an apparent lack of balance in the percentage distribution between the various  action lines: priority should be given to action line 3 (on European multimedia potential),  possibly diverting funds away from action line 1 (stimulating demand and raising awareness), since  the latter action line could be shorter in duration and certainly less costly. 4.1.1. This stance is justifiable, for instance, in the light of the influence already exerted by  the spread of the Internet as an information tool. 4.2. Since specific action on content production industry is not to be separated from that on  market mechanisms and rules, the establishment of a specific action line to redress Europe's  weaknesses in this area could reinforce the programme further. 4.2.1. In particular, developing access policies (Annex  1, 2.1), trading intellectual property  rights (3.2) and spreading the use of multimedia content standards (4.2) represent technical and  regulatory props for Europe's structural weakness derived from its political, economic and  linguistic fragmentation. These could be brought together in a single action. 4.3. Action line 1 - Stimulating demand and raising awareness4.3.1. In its communication on a  methodology for the implementation of information society applications (COM(95) 224 final), the  Commission stresses services of collective interest, and places the priority on services demanded  by users; more specifically, it argues that initiatives should be directed towards meeting stated  or potential requirements. 4.3.2. The Commission should therefore urgently carry out research into such requirements, since  the INFO 2000 programme cannot be restricted simply to stimulating demand and raising awareness for  new products. 4.3.3. Furthermore, marketing surveys on this scale - which only some large companies would be in a  position to carry out - are also necessary if SMEs are to enter this market at an acceptably  competitive level. 4.3.4. If the Commission wishes, first of all, to foster SMEs - the general thrust of many EU  actions - then it will also have to provide them with data. It is inconceivable that SMEs, which do  not possess the means to carry out research of this kind, should launch costly initiatives without  knowing if they are market-viable. 4.3.5. Another area requiring attention is that of cost and price containment and the need for  users also to enjoy the greatest possible transparency regarding additional costs for services and  accessories: low entry cost is far more likely to achieve market acceptability for a product than  an extensive publicity campaign. 4.3.6. Given that this action line is preparatory to the others, timetables and funding should be  more narrowly concentrated on the first two years, so as to pave the way for the initial  productions which may be expected from the third year on. 4.3.7. Actions already planned can indeed be accompanied by others aimed at encouraging and  facilitating the acquisition and exploitation of multimedia products and services, including  training and consultancy services, by tailoring them not only to SMEs, but also to consumer markets  which, according to numerous studies, will represent one of the main multimedia openings. 4.3.8. Against this backdrop, the role of school education and vocational and university level  training could be stepped up. 4.4. Action line 2 - Exploiting Europe's public sector information4.4.1. A broad range of projects  is planned under this line, but in order to involve the public authorities more actively in the  field of social interests, priority should be given to support actions for: - multimedia projects, which many European city authorities are planning or launching, in order to  enhance quality of life, particularly in the large urban centres, and reduce both time and expense  for individuals in their dealings with the authorities; - interactive programmes in the health field to inform and advise doctors and patients; - support programmes for the continuing training sector; - specific information programmes on regional aid for businesses. 4.4.2. Such projects might create opportunities not only for the development of the content  industry, but also for greater grass-roots dissemination of the multimedia culture by providing  solutions which are of practical use in everyday life. 4.4.3. The purpose would be to strengthen some of the programmes under the fourth Framework  Programme which have set up specific actions on this issue (e.g. the Telematics programme and the  TURA subprogramme), although on a scale and with resources insufficient to meet demand. 4.5. Action line 3 - Triggering European multimedia potential4.5.1. The impact could be  intensified by increasing the programme's own resources, especially for action  3.1 (catalyzing  high quality European multimedia content); to this end, the distribution of resources between the  various actions should be reviewed, as mentioned in  4.1 above, so to increase the share directed  to triggering European multimedia potential. 4.6. Support actions4.6.1. Lastly, activities planned as part of the support actions (action line  4) could cover the European Scientific and Technological Parks and Business Innovation Centres  (BIC) network; this has a wealth of know-how and ability, having been involved for some time now in  transferring knowledge and innovation to the industrial system. In this context, support actions  might be envisaged for the Park projects relating to the development of multimedia content and  services. 4.7. Training4.7.1. The ESC notes that the proposed programme gives little weight to the question  of training, on the grounds that this is covered by other Community programmes. 4.7.2. A specific problem however exists concerning multimedia content producers, authors and  creators, less for young producers who naturally enjoy readier access, but for older producers who  need retraining, particularly in the use of the new technologies and production methods, if their  accumulated experience is to be put to good use. 4.7.3. The ESC therefore believes that a training programme should be devised for this purpose, and  urges the Commission to instruct CEDEFOP to study the different aspects of the training question in  this sphere. 5. Conclusions5.1. The Committee fears that the Commission is generally tending to underestimate  the possible socio-economic consequences of excessive mass media concentration or of the inability  to guarantee a plurality of sources of information. 5.2. While the principles of liberalization, deregulation, competitiveness, etc., are actively  supported by the Commission, it is a source of great concern that the standards to be observed  within the regulatory framework have not yet been established. 5.3. The ESC fully supports the INFO 2000 programme's stated objectives and agrees with the main  lines of its contents. In view of the discussion on this issue, the Committee, however, finds some  weaknesses in the programme proposal; its overall direction is sometimes vague and its scope is not  fully defined. 5.4. Although aware of the difficulties in dealing with the information content question and of the  potential risks of over-simplification of the problems involved, the ESC considers that, in this  instance, the rules on the transparency and efficacy of proposed actions have not been fully  applied. 5.5. Acknowledging the importance and relevance of a speedy Community initiative on the  information-content industry, the ESC therefore urges the Commission to consider whether it should,  as clearly as possible, make the following points in the programme. 5.5.1. Given the correlation with other Community programmes in the information sector, the ESC  believes that INFO 2000 should be viewed as an instrument for closer overall coordination. 5.5.2. In view of the meagre overall funding, at least for the first four-year period, the  percentage distribution between the various action lines should be altered so as to trigger the  greatest possible European potential (see points 4.1, 4.2, 4.3.6 and 4.5). 5.5.3. In the interests of preventing excessive dilution of the limited resources and of attaining  maximum action efficiency, the number of possible projects should be reduced to a minimum applying  their workability as the criterion and giving priority to those of a social nature (see points  3.3.3, 4.3.2 and 4.4.1). Done at Brussels, 20 December 1995. The Presidentof the Economic and Social CommitteeCarlos FERRER() OJ No 250,  26. 9. 1995, p. 4.