Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and the Council concerning the implementation of a programme of support for the European audiovisual sector (MEDIA 2007) (COM(2004) 470 final — 2004/0151 (COD))
Date: 2005-04-06
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU office or agency, action programme, audiovisual communications policy, audiovisual industry, cultural promotion

14.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/39

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Decision of the
European Parliament and the Council concerning the implementation of a programme of support
for the European audiovisual sector (MEDIA 2007)

(COM(2004) 470 final — 2004/0151 (COD))

(2005/C 255/07)

On 9 September 2004, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Articles 157(3) and 150(4) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovemen-
tioned communication.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 21 March 2005. The rapporteur
was Mr Pegado Liz.

At its 416th plenary session, held on 6 and 7 April 2005 (meeting of 6 April), the European Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 133 votes, with seven abstentions.

1. Introduction: Gist of the proposal

1.5

The specific aims of the programme are, in short:

1.1 With this proposal (COM(2004) 470 final of 14 July
2004), the Commission intends to follow up the Media Plus (1)
and Media-Training (2) programmes,
the
results of their mid-term evaluation in conjunction with the
preparatory action i2i Audiovisual: Growth and Audiovisual, (3)
the results of the broad public consultation held between May
and August 2003, and the impact analysis containing an ex-
ante evaluation from July 2004 (4).

taking account of

The Commission considers the audiovisual sector to be
1.2
a keystone of European citizenship and culture and able to play
a unique role in building a European cultural identity. It does
this sector is fragmented; although this
however note that
reflects an important cultural diversity,
it has prevented the
European audiovisual industry from being genuinely competi-
tive with respect to non-European imports, both on the EU
market and worldwide.

1.3 With the Media 2007 Programme, the Commission aims
to stimulate private investment in the audiovisual sector to
enable companies operating in that sector, especially SMEs, to
improve their competitiveness and financial solidity, building
on experience gained in previous programmes.

1.4
In order to develop synergies and to avoid bureaucratic
duplication and obstacles, the Commission wishes to have a
single programme covering the pre-production and post-
production phases and focusing in particular on European-scale
distribution.

(1) Council Decision 2000/821/EC of 20.12.2000, OJ L 13 of

13.1.2001.

(2) Decision 163/2001/EC of

the European Parliament and of

the

Council of 19.1.2001, OJ L 26 of 27.1.2001.

(3) COM(2003) 725 final of 24.11.2003 and COM(2003) 802 final of

18.12.2003.

(4) SEC(2004) 955 final of 14.7.2004.

A) In the pre-production phase

I- Acquisition and improvement of skills in the audiovisual

field:

a) boosting European audiovisual professionals' skills;

b) improving the European dimension of training activ-

ities.

II- As regards development:

a) supporting projects from independent production

companies;

b) assisting the preparation of financial plans for Euro-

pean production companies and projects.

B) In the post-production phase

I- As regards distribution and dissemination:

a) consolidating European distribution by encouraging
distributors (i) to invest in the co-production, acquisi-
tion and promotion of non-national European films
and (ii) to devise coordinated marketing strategies;

b) improving the circulation of non-national European
films on the European and international markets;

c) promoting the transnational broadcasting of Euro-
pean audiovisual works produced by independent
production companies;

d) favouring the digitalisation of European audiovisual

works;

e) encouraging cinemas

to exploit

the possibilities

offered by digital distribution.

C 255/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.10.2005

II- As regards promotion:

the need to better define‘criteria and instruments which can help to
pinpoint eligible parties and ensure maximum transparency’.

a) improving the circulation of European audiovisual

works;

b) improving access to European audiovisual works for

the European and international public;

c) encouraging joint actions between national film and
audiovisual programme promotion organisations;

d) fostering the promotion of Europe's cinematographic

and audiovisual heritage.

C) Support for pilot projects in areas likely to be affected by
the introduction and use of new information and communi-
cation technologies

them,

for each of

1.6
In the Annex to the proposal, the Commission examines
each operational objective in great detail, subdividing them and
setting out,
the measures to be taken,
arrangements for their implementation, the instruments to be
used and the financial resources allocated to each one. Of the
various forms of implementing measures, to be highlighted is
the creation, along new lines, of a network of MEDIA desks
and MEDIA antennae, with a long list of responsibilities and
tasks.

1.7
The proposal concludes with a detailed budget covering
the seven years of the Programme, with a budget for imple-
at
menting
EUR 1055 million, specifying all the financial resources allo-
cated to each action and measure planned.

implementation

programme's

the

set

2. Background

As stated above, this proposal pursues the approach first
2.1
adopted by the Media (1991/1995) (5), Media II- Development
and Distribution (1996/2000) (6), Media
Plus (7), Media
Training (8), and Media Training (2001-2005) (9) Programmes,
which have now been integrated into a single programme.

It is worth recalling in this connection the main conclu-
the opinions adopted by the EESC on these

2.2
sions of
programmes.

2.2.1
The EESC concluded its Opinion on the Proposals on
MEDIA II-Training (1996/2000) and MEDIA II — Development
and Distribution (1996/2000) (10)
(COM(94) 523 final), by
drawing attention to the need to ‘reduce the risk of resources being
wasted’ and to define in advance criteria which‘ensure that the
programmes and their funding are as effective as possible’, as well as

(5) Cf Council Decision 90/685/EC of 21.12.1990, OJ L 380 of

31.12.1990.

(6) Council Decision 95/563/EC of 10.7.1995, OJ L 321 of

30.12.1995.

(7) Council Decision 2000/821/EC of 20.12.2000, OJ L 13 of

17.1.2001.

(8) Council Decision 95/564/EC of 22.12.1995, OJ L 321 of

2.2.2
In its Opinion on the Proposals on Media Training
(2001/2005) and MEDIA PLUS — Development, Distribution
and Promotion (2001/2005) (11) (COM(1999) 658 final), whilst
supporting the Commission proposals, the EESC deplored the
fact that these had not taken ‘account of the fact that the impor-
tance of the European audiovisual industry does not derive exclusively
from its entrepreneurial dimension, but also from its role as a vehicle
for the promotion of our culture and democratic values’.

2.2.3
It also emphasised the need ‘to evaluate the jobs which
could be generated by […] application’ (of the measures proposed)
and recommended that such measures should actively promote
‘greater participation by women, […] ensuring that women are […]
better represented in the sector’.

2.2.4
The EESC also acknowledged the lack of incentives for
‘access to the market for independent [European] firms’ and ‘public
access to the European audiovisual heritage’ by means of digitalisa-
tion, suggested that it might be useful to set up ‘pilot projects
[…] in the framework of e-Europe’, demonstrating its support for
the promotion of subtitling and, regretting the paucity of the
resources allocated, reiterated the proposal to create a European
Information Society Agency ‘which would help coordinate the
various initiatives in the field of multimedia convergence’. It also
welcomed the creation of a Guarantee Fund as a means of
promoting the audiovisual sector (12).

Lastly,

2.2.5
in its Opinion on the Proposals for a Regu-
lation and for a Decision to extend the Media Training and
Media Plus programmes until 2006 (13) (COM(2003) 188 final)
and COM(2003) 191 final), the EESC, criticising the fact that
the Commission had not been able to present its new multi-
annual programmes for the audiovisual sector in good time,

i) highlighted the glaring inadequacy of the funding allocated
to the objectives proposed, in particular in light of enlarge-
ment,

ii) recommended that

the

support provided under

the
programme be geared more effectively to supporting SMEs,
particularly the many micro businesses in the sector,
including the private funding mechanisms and funding
from the EIB, such as the Growth and audiovisual: i2i audiovi-
sual scheme,

iii) highlighted the importance of Media Desks as the national

interface with programme beneficiaries, and

iv) reaffirmed a number of
Opinion of 27 April 2000.

strategic points made in its

30.12.1995.

(9) Decision 163/2001/EC of

the European Parliament and of

Council of 19.1.2001, OJ L 26 of 27.1.2001.

(10) OJ C 256 of 2.10.1995.

the

(11) OJ C 168 of 16.06.2000
(12) OJ C 204 of 15.07.1996
(13) OJ C 10 of 14.1.2004

14.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/41

2.3 When considering the proposal now under examination,
it will look at the substance of the observations and recommen-
dations made, in order to ascertain to what extent they have
been taken into account and whether they remain valid.

3. General comments

The EESC welcomes the Commission initiative, which to
3.1
a large extent takes on board a variety of the EESC's sugges-
tions and recommendations set out in previous opinions.

3.2
One particular example of this is the fact that the new
MEDIA programme is designed to simplify the structure of
Community action for the audiovisual sector by setting up a
single integrated programme that will come into play in the
pre-production and post-production phases (MEDIA 2007),
replacing the two current programmes
(MEDIA Plus and
MEDIA-Training).

3.3
A further example is that the new programme also takes
account of horizontal priorities previously highlighted by the
EESC, such as:

i) consideration of the cultural value of Europe's cinemato-
graphic and audiovisual heritage in the measures proposed;

ii) strengthening SMEs' production structures;

iii) reducing imbalances between countries with a high produc-
tion capacity and those with a low production capacity or a
limited linguistic area;

iv) taking account of market developments with regard to the

use of digital technologies; and lastly

v) promoting dubbing and subtitling in the distribution and

dissemination of European audiovisual works.

3.5.1
In this context, the EESC wishes in particular to draw
the Commission's attention to the need to strengthen initiatives
to prevent
too much concentration in the industry, which
could harm pluralism and diversity and which could prove
even more damaging where new technologies are being intro-
duced, as this could be detrimental to production and distribu-
tion. The EESC also wishes to highlight the need to ensure that
copyright is protected and to combat piracy, while consoli-
dating resources for countering certain anti-competitive prac-
tices.

By the same token, the EESC can only welcome the
3.5.2
Commission Communication on the follow-up to its communi-
cation on certain legal aspects relating to cinematographic and
other audiovisual works (14) and support the adoption by the
European Parliament and the Council of the Proposal for a
Recommendation contained therein, as stated in an earlier
opinion (15).

The EESC takes the view that including a definition of
3.6
the main concepts underlying the programme in the decision
itself — especially when these concepts are of particular impor-
tance in the context of the programme, such as the concept of
the independent producer — would make it easier to under-
stand the MEDIA 2007 programme, although it acknowledges
that such concepts appear in other Community documents and
that such definitions have traditionally been explained in
‘guidelines’ for the programme's implementation.

Having noted some differences in the various language
3.7
versions of
for a decision presented by the
Commission, the EESC strongly recommends that these discre-
pancies be identified and ironed out in the definitive texts.

the proposal

3.8
Lastly, whilst acknowledging that the funding earmarked
for the proposed measures and the allocation of these funds
over the years do not generally give rise to any further
comments, the EESC feels that account should be taken of any
implications arising from the remarks set out below under
‘specific comments’ and recommends that,
in the mid-term
evaluation, due thought be given to whether the resources allo-
cated are adequate for fully achieving the programme's objec-
tives.

3.4
The EESC also notes and welcomes the sensible, well-
ordered way that the draft Programme has been designed, in
particular the way that the annex on the budget and the finan-
cial impact has been drawn up.

4. Specific comments

The EESC furthermore notes that,

3.5
in the explanatory
memorandum, the Commission has not been able, as it had
intended, to give more detailed consideration to the role that
industry can play in the lasting development of the European
audiovisual and cinematographic
sector as an important
mouthpiece for European citizenship and culture. The EESC
believes it to be crucial, however, that European cultural values
are always safeguarded and that diversity and pluralism are
guaranteed in all audiovisual media: this concern should form
an integral part of all Commission initiatives under
this
programme.

4.1
The EESC recalls and reaffirms some of the strategic
considerations set out in its opinion of 24 September 2003 (16)
because it believes that the Commission's proposal for a deci-
sion still
fails to give adequate coverage to some aspects
relating to the need for the new programme to:

— ensure complementarity and consistency with other Com-

munity measures for producing a common strategy;

(14) COM(2004) 171 final of 16.3.2004, OJ C 123 of 30.4.2004
(15) OJ C 74, 23.3.2005. Rapporteur: Mr Braghin.
(16) Previously referred to in point 2.2.5

C 255/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.10.2005

— attach particular priority to technological development,

innovation and cross-border movement;

— give a decisive boost to setting up and developing a system
for providing information and monitoring new needs and
developments in the audiovisual market;

— achieve a steady increase in public access to Europe's audio-
visual heritage by means of its digitalisation and by setting
up European networks,
in particular for educational and
training purposes;

4.4.1
Given, however, that under the terms of point 7 of the
explanatory memorandum, the Commission ‘will delegate the
management of the programme to an executive agency’, reiter-
ated in point 5.3 of the Annex and in point 6.1.1 — financial
intervention — which also sets out the appropriations to be
allocated to this executive agency, the EESC, having studied the
aims and tasks of this Agency as set out in Article 4 of the
aforementioned decision, urges the Commission to give a
detailed, clear indication of i) what the agency's specific respon-
sibilities will be for managing the Media 2007 programme in
line with provisions 4(2), 4(3) and 4(4) and ii) how it will share
competences with other Community bodies responsible for
evaluating the MEDIA 2007
implementing,
programme and/or take over these competences.

advising or

— guarantee that regular and systematic evaluations are made
of the programme's implementation, in order to ensure the
best use of the financial resources available and to meet the
requirements of the audiovisual industry;

— consistently support the development of pilot projects that
address issues of content and not only the technological
aspect;

— and effectively promote European films in Europe and
throughout the world by systematically providing informa-
tion on festivals.

4.2
The EESC also reiterates its recommendation, as stated
in its opinion of 15 September 2004 (17), that more emphasis
be placed on training in new technologies and on new require-
ments as regards the collection, cataloguing, conservation and
restoration of film and television works, database management
and standardised methods for storing work in high-quality
digital format.

4.3
The EESC considers that although the programme's
objectives include specific incentives for SMEs, these should be
better reflected in the funds allocated, so as to allow for more
effective and consistent support: equally, support for intro-
ducing new digital technologies — in cinemas and online —
and for new initiatives in technological innovation would also
warrant more substantial funding.

of

As

regards management

4.4
the MEDIA 2007
programme, the EESC notes that the Commission has just set
up an executive agency for the management of Community
action in the fields of education, audiovisual and culture (18), for
the period from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2008, with
the possibility of a review or extension of the tasks of the
Agency
the new generation of
programmes, which would thus include management of the
Media 2007 programme.

framework of

in the

(17) Previously referred to in point 3.5.2
(18) Commission Decision of 14 January 2005 setting up the Education,
Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency for the management of
Community action in the fields of education, audiovisual and
culture in application of Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 OJ L
24 of 27.1.2005, pp 35 to 38.

In particular, consideration should be given to the
4.4.2
need to provide the executive agency with human resources
specialised in this particular area of the audiovisual sector; the
Decision makes no mention of this.

4.4.3
Attention should also be drawn to the importance of
ensuring that the integrated management of the programme is
thereby specifically
properly guaranteed by the
avoiding conflicts of responsibility — whether positive or nega-
tive — between the bodies involved in defining the program-
me's strategic aims and its management.

agency,

4.4.4
It should also be made clear what body or bodies will
take over the Agency's responsibilities if, in mid-programme,
there is no confirmation that it can continue to ensure the
smooth, efficient running of the programme, without any alter-
native solutions being proposed.

remains

As regards the financial provisions and because the
4.5
European audiovisual market
fragmented and its
cultural heterogeneity is reflected in a dichotomy between
(a) countries with a low audiovisual production capacity and/or
a limited linguistic or geographical area, and (b) countries with
a greater production capacity (19),
the EESC considers that,
notwithstanding the limitations imposed by competition law,
the Commission — when defining the programme guidelines
— could take account of the true situation in some Member
States and regions that have demonstrably failed to develop
their audiovisual industries to their full potential.

(19) As highlighted in the Commission report on The implementation
and the mid-term results of the MEDIA Plus and MEDIA Training
programmes (2001-2005), backed up in the conclusions of the
mid-term evaluation report presented to the European Commission
(Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parlia-
ment,
the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions: Report on the implementation and the
mid-term results of
the MEDIA Plus and MEDIA Training
programmes (2001-2005) and on the results of the preparatory
action ‘Growth and audiovisual: i2i audiovisual’ COM(2003) 725
final, of 24.11.2003: the report entitled Mid-Term evaluation of
the MEDIA Plus and MEDIA Training Programmes, drawn up by
the companies APRIL/Media Consulting Group/SECOR. On the
issue of positive discrimination, see item 4(7) of the executive
summary: The European added value of MEDIA for countries with
a low production capacity and a restricted linguistic area).

14.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/43

4.6
As regards communication, the EESC fully supports the
Commission's strategic option of strengthening the substantive
powers of Media Desks and Antennae as set out in point 2.2
MEDIA desks and MEDIA antennae of Chapter 2 in the Annex
to this decision. The EESC suggests as a result that the Commis-
sion should bring the wording of Article 12 into line with the
wider range of tasks listed in the aforementioned point in the
Annex (20) and should provide appropriate funding for MEDIA
desks to enable them to fulfil their tasks properly.

4.7
The Committee also wishes to highlight the need for
Article 13(2) of the proposal to make explicit the Commission's
obligation to ensure consistency and complementarity between
the Media 2007 programme and the programmes and actions
undertaken in the audiovisual sector as part of Community

cooperation with third countries and with the competent inter-
national organisations, as provided for in Article 9(2) of the
Council Decision of 20 December 2000 on the MEDIA Plus
programme (21).

4.8
The EESC also considers that, given the estimated dura-
tion of the programme (7 years) and the way that markets and
technologies naturally develop, it would be advisable to change
the evaluation timetable set out in Article 14(3) of the decision,
amongst other things bringing forward the first mid-term
evaluation report on the results and the qualitative and quanti-
tative aspects of the programme's implementation. This would
mean that the conclusions of this evaluation might still be used
the operational objectives and
for a possible revision of
measures to be carried out.

Brussels, 6 April 2005

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

(20) The Committee believes that, with this proposal for an amendment,
the proposal for a decision under review would gain in transpar-
ency and legal certainty.

(21) OJ L 13 of 17 January 2001, p. 34 et seq.