Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled A new framework for cooperation on activities concerning the information and communication policy of the European Union"
Date: 2001-11-29
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: European Union, communications policy, information policy, interinstitutional cooperation (EU), public awareness campaign

21.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 48/109

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission
to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee
of the Regions entitled A new framework for cooperation on activities concerning the
information and communication policy of the European Union’

(2002/C 48/25)

On 29 June 2001 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned communication.

The Committee appointed Mr Gafo Ferna´ndez as rapporteur-general for the opinion.

At its 386th plenary session (meeting of 29 November 2001) the European Economic and Social
Committee unanimously adopted the following opinion.

1. General comments

— help to structure the dialogue with civil society organis-
ations (‘institution-building’) in non-EU states and areas,
above all in the applicant states;

1.1.
The ESC supports the Commission’s aim of establishing
a new framework for cooperation in respect of information
and communication with a view to the subsequent definition
and implementation of a common strategy in this field which
takes into account the role that all EU institutions and bodies
need to play.

— adapt the message to be transmitted, as understood in the
Communication, to the specific characteristics of the
target audience and the variety of discussion partners
represented at the ESC.

In order to develop an informed debate on the future
1.2.
of Europe, along the lines of the White Paper on Governance,
for example, a certain amount of advance planning is clearly
necessary in order to raise citizens’ awareness and associate
them in an active and positive manner. This is especially true
of unforeseen events affecting Community policies, such as
the food crises, where there was a particularly compelling need
for clear, structured public information. This requires the prior
establishment of a communication strategy based on specific
communication objectives, with the messages and means of
communication tailored to the objectives. This will also make
it easier to react to unforeseen situations where the public
needs to be kept informed of EU policies and actions.

This approach also ties in with the (recently signed) protocol
of cooperation between the Commission and the ESC.

1.4.
The ESC would also point out that it has adopted a
strategic communication plan; many of the points set out
in this plan chime with the measures proposed in the
communication under review. In particular, interinstitutional
cooperation, which is being sought by the Commission, is one
of the key objectives of the ESC’s strategic communication
plan. The strategic communication plan, adopted by the ESC
on its own initiative, therefore already provides an effective
operational means of meeting the expectations set out in
the Commission’s communication, provided the appropriate
funding is made available.

1.3.
The ESC is ready to play its part in achieving this goal
by highlighting not only its consultative role vis-à-vis the other
EU institutions but also its specific character and the fact that
it complements the other EU institutions. As the only EU-level
assembly which is independent of political parties, the ESC is
in a position to help achieve the goal which has been set by
virtue of its ability to:

— act as a relay for civil society organisations in the Member

States;

1.5.
The ESC regrets that the communication, which is
addressed to all EU institutions, mainly focuses on the EP and
the Commission although the integrity and responsibilities of
each institution are referred to on a number of occasions. A
‘genuine overhaul of information and communication policy’
should go beyond the arrangements which have applied for
many years — the results of which have been acknowledged
to have been disappointing — and give greater prominence to
the new and original contributions — albeit more modest —
which the other institutions and bodies are in many cases able
to make to the measures proposed by the Commission. This
comment could also apply to the role the European Council
must play.

C 48/110

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.2.2002

With this aim in mind, the ESC, which is playing an active role
in all the interinstitutional cooperation measures currently
being stepped up, asks that it be involved in all the interinsti-
tutional structures proposed in the communication and, in
particular, to be involved in the Inter-Institutional Group on
Information (IGI).

communication, namely ‘taking note of the decisions of the
IGI and the recommendations made’.

For these reasons, the ESC must be given its own seat on both
the IGI and the proposed Advisory Body on Information and
Communication referred to in point I.1.2 of the Communi-
cation (bottom of page 8).

2. Specific comments

2.1. A Europe closer to the citizen

The ESC should highlight the fact that a key component of the
strategy to be adopted is its role and its ability to act as a relay
and an intermediary between the EU institutions and civil
society organisations in the Member States, with which we
have regular, well established contact and via which citizens
themselves can be reached.

This role, which the ESC is entitled to claim more vigorously
following the signature of the Treaty of Nice, should be
recognised by the other institutions and highlighted and
facilitated in the implementation of a common information
and communication strategy.

In addition, this strategy should identify the various groups of
citizens targeted by the information, and this information
should be adapted to their specific needs. In this sense, the
Committee can again play a very important role.

2.2. Accountability and integrity of the institutions

The very nature of the ESC — its close links with the economic
and social fields and citizens, enjoyed by no other European
institution — enables it to provide vital added value to an
interinstitutional approach;

The ESC intends to give itself a strong new identity by
exploiting the synergies provided by this cooperation: the
messages passed on should reflect both the specific nature and
the complementary nature of the bodies concerned.

2.3. The Inter-Institutional Group on Information (IGI) and the
Advisory Body on Information and Communication

The membership of the IGI must clearly be extended, first as
that would increase the expertise and ability to reach citizens
provided by the ESC and, second, as it is unlikely that the
institutions not represented on that body will be able to
understand, assimilate and agree on what is suggested in the

2.4. Cooperation on the ground — representations and external

offices

Although it has no structure of
the ESC has
developed a full and ongoing dialogue with civil society
organisations in non-EU states, giving priority, in recent years,
to the applicant states (institution-building).

this type,

This action by the ESC could engender much greater interest
and support from the representations and external offices of
not just the Commission but also of the European Parliament.
In view of the fact that the Commission is planning to revise
the mandates of these offices, it should be proposed that the
offices be instructed (and not just asked) to:

— disseminate ESC publications,

— cooperate actively in events organised by the ESC in the

countries concerned,

— provide reception facilities for ESC members and officials

sent out to prepare these events,

— appoint a liaison offer for activities involving the ESC.

2.5. Other institutions and bodies

More should be said about the ESC (and the CoR). Note
that,
in the second paragraph of the communication, the
cooperation protocol — which was signed between the ESC
and the Commission on 24 September 2001 — is referred to
as a ‘joint declaration’.

The Communication raises the issue of the clarification of each
institution’s role. It is essential for other institutions to spell
out the role of the ESC when they describe how the decision-
making process works. For, if only because of its independence
of party politics and its proximity to the grass-roots, the ESC
is able to help bring EU institutions closer to Europeans, which
is what the Commission wants.

21.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 48/111

2.6. The Member States and National Parliaments: Parliaments

3. Comments on the annex

and Economic and Social Councils

The ESC should participate in the joint actions with govern-
ment agencies in the Member States (page 12, 4th paragraph).
The ESC could, in particular, initiate such actions with its
national counterparts as part of its work and exchange with
these councils and also act as a relay with national parliaments.

2.7.

Externalisation possibilities

The idea of establishing an inter-institutional
information
agency is of interest, in that it could provide a pool of resources
and skills, while at the same time maintaining close relations
with the various institutions, in order to keep perfectly in step
with their specific characteristics. At the same time it would
enable the issue of communication and information to be
addressed independently and as professionally as possible,
while finally providing the human dimension (simple language,
clear message, willingness to listen, etc.) which Europeans feel
has been severely lacking;

The principle of externalisation makes it possible to keep in
touch with market realities and trends, and to avoid sending
out messages that are overly rigid and administrative. This
aspect could have the effect of ensuring creativity and orig-
inality in the formulation of messages or in the signature of
the institutions;

3.1.

Priority Information Activities PRINCE

the ESC was involved in these
For a while (1996-97),
information activities,
in particular on the euro, and in
conjunction with MEPs. If the priority information activities
under the PRINCE programme are to continue, the ESC wishes
to be involved once more in the programme.

3.2. Networks and relays

Info-Points Europe (139), Rural Information Carrefours (130)
and Urban Forums (19): the Committee should systematically
provide input to these information centres;

It is not enough to be in contact only with the major centres;
one must also be in touch with regional and local level-links:
in other words, networks not funded by the Commission
(public libraries, local authorities, chambers of commerce, etc.)
as well as the European Documentation Centres (EDCs), the
FIME (Fédération internationale des Maisons de l’Europe) and
the Team Europe and Groupeuro teams of speakers.

3.3. The EUROPA website

This initiative is of interest to the ESC, which should be
involved in preparatory work for setting up such an agency.

The ESC is represented on the Interinstitutional
Internet
Editorial Committee (CEiii) and has hosted a number of its
meetings;

2.8.

Follow-up

In response to the Commission’s invitation (last paragraph),
the ESC should highlight the role its members can play in the
Member States, via the organisations they represent. This
would be in line with the Commission’s wish to act first and
foremost upon those responsible for forming and disseminat-
ing opinion in each Member State.

The ESC is in direct contact with EUROPA (reciprocal infor-
mation relays, updating of information and links);

The upgrading of EUROPA to a second-generation EUROPA
II, and to concepts such as ‘e-governance’ or ‘e-Commission’
should also allow the ESC in its turn to be ‘updated’ by
introducing — and why not? — the concept of ‘e-consultation’;
in other words not only the European ESC in particular, but
similar consultative institutions in general, should be a key
feature on the Web. In this connection, CESlink and AICESIS
are pillars which should receive real support.

— in addition to their ‘multiplier’ effect, members also
provide information to their organisations and to their
contacts at all levels;

3.4.

Europe Direct

— relations with the national and regional economic and
social councils are very important since these councils
also have a significant ‘multiplier’ effect. Generally speak-
ing, it is important to ensure that we are not paralysed by
a ‘keep off my patch’ mentality.

Closer cooperation with Europe Direct is necessary in order to
cope with the increased number of emails sent to the ESC
information box (info@esc.eu.int). Many requests are sent to
the ESC by default, when they are actually meant for the
Commission;

C 48/112

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.2.2002

Moreover, this increased e-mail traffic requires rapid, appropri-
ate action if we are to respect the ‘netiquette’ for processing
e-mail requests: making services providing specific information
take responsibility, and setting up contact teams covering all
fields and the full range of languages, including certain central
and eastern European languages.

3.5. Visits

duly briefed about institutional activities, the Committee’s role
in Community decision-making, etc.;

It is essential that speakers from other institutions proclaim
the same consensual message,
focusing on cooperation
between the institutions in the interest of European construc-
tion which, when clearly and simply explained, is transparent,
democratic and solid. It is sometimes necessary for these
speakers to explain the very essence of the ESC. Do we have a
training course for these speakers?

The ESC, which has a team of speakers backed up by a number
of members, receives around 8 000 visitors a year, who are

Cooperation with the Commission and with the EUVP is
nevertheless very good and should be stepped up.

Brussels, 29 November 2001.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘A sustainable Europe for a Better World’

(2002/C 48/26)

On 31 May 2001 the Economic and Social Committee decided, in accordance with Rules 11(4), 19(1)
and 23(3) of its Rules of Procedure, to draw up an opinion on ‘A sustainable Europe for a Better World’.

The Sub-Committee ‘Sustainable Europe’, which was responsible for the preparatory work, adopted its
opinion on 30 October 2001. The rapporteur was Mr Ehnmark, the co-rapporteur Mr Ribbe.

At its 386th plenary session (meeting of 29 November 2001) the Economic and Social Committee
adopted unanimously the following opinion.

1. Call to the Laeken Council

ing objective for the Union. With that decision, the Summit
opened up a new vision for the future of Europe.

1.1.
The Economic and Social Committee welcomes the
Belgian Presidency’s initiative to prepare a Declaration on the
Future of Europe to be adopted at the Laeken European
Council. This gives a unique opportunity to present fundamen-
tal views on the future of Europe, its aims and purposes, at an
early stage in the forthcoming wide public debate.

The Gothenburg European Summit

1.2.
took the far-
reaching decision to set sustainable development as an overrid-

1.3.
The intentions for the Laeken Declaration make it a
special occasion to sharpen the vision of sustainable develop-
ment as a major task for the European Union. Now is the time
to make clear the full scope of the challenge and opportunity
for the Union of this new project and to set it clearly in the
midst of the debate on the future of Europe. Sustainable