Opinion of the European Economic an Social Committee on the White Paper on a European communication policy COM(2006) 35 final
Date: 2006-07-06
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: European Union, access to EU information, communications policy, dissemination of EU information, public awareness campaign

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/115

Opinion of the European Economic an Social Committee on the White Paper on a European
communication policy

COM(2006) 35 final

(2006/C 309/24)

On 1 February,
the European Economic and Social
Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the White Paper on a
European communication policy

the European Commission decided to consult

And under Rule 19, paragraph 1 of its Rules of Procedure, the Committee decided at its 424th plenary
session held on 15 and 16 February to establish a subcommittee to prepare its work on the matter.

The Subcommittee on European communication policy, which was responsible for preparing the Commit-
tee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 22 June 2006. The rapporteur was Ms Jillian van Turnhout.

At its 428th plenary session held on 5 and 6 July 2006 (meeting of 6 July), the European Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 108 votes with 4 abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

The Committee's detailed views on the five questions put in the
In
European Commission's White Paper are set out below.
summary, the Committee does not favour an additional charter
or code of conduct setting out general principles but it reiter-
ates its call for the Commission to address face on the problem
of a missing legal basis
for communication policy. The
Committee draws attention to a twin resource problem; lack of
funds and discouragingly complicated bureaucratic procedures
for the disbursement of these. The Committee applauds the
practical proposals concerning such issues as civic education,
points out that primary responsibility for many of these lies
with the Member States, and calls inter alia for Education Minis-
ters to debate a common approach to the history of the Euro-
pean Union. In order to reach citizens, we need (i) a clear and
attractive set of messages, a clear vision which citizens accept
as their vision, and (ii) an appropriate design and instruments
for communication The EESC is ready and willing to work
together with the other institutions and,
indeed, notes the
many positive inter-institutional developments at the central
level. However,
the Committee, which strongly supports a
decentralised approach, would urge the Commission to reflect
further on how genuine synergies and interinstitutional coop-
the decentralised level. The
eration may be facilitated at
Committee proposes
the promised post-White Paper
addendum to the protocol of cooperation between the Euro-
pean Commission and the European Economic and Social
Committee should focus on this particular issue.

that

2. Explanatory statement

space of seven months. The other two were: an internal Action
Plan (SEC(2005) 985 final), adopted on 20 July 2005; and its
Communication ‘Reflection and beyond: Plan D for Democracy,
Dialogue and Debate’ (COM(2005) 494 final), adopted on 13
October 2005. The White Paper invites the European Union's
institutions and bodies to respond ‘through the normal institu-
tional channels’. It sets a period of six months for consultations,
after which it proposes to take stock ‘with a view to proposing
plans of action for each working area’.

For

its part,

2.2
the European Economic and Social
Committee has adopted two recent opinions in the communi-
cations field:
the first on The Reflection Period: structure,
themes and framework for an evaluation of the debate on the
European Union (CESE 1249/2005 (1)), adopted on 26 October
and addressed to the European Parliament;
the second its
opinion on the Commission's ‘Plan D’ Communication (CESE
1499/2005 (2)), adopted on 14 December 2005. Both these
opinions proposed a series of operational recommendations. At
its 6 April 2006 meeting, the EESC's Communication Group
commenced a process of systematic review of the implementa-
tion of those operational recommendations.

2.3
The current opinion on the White Paper should not,
therefore, go over ground which the Committee has already
covered and is still covering. Rather, it should seek to respond
to the five basic areas identified in the White Paper. These are:

— Defining common principles: which way forward?

— How to reach out to the citizen?

— How to involve the media more effectively in communi-

cating on Europe?

— What more can be done to gauge European opinion?

The European Commission's White Paper on a European
2.1
Communication Policy (COM(2006) 35 final) was adopted on
1 February 2006. It represented the third document adopted
on communications issues by the European Commission in the

— Doing the job together.

(1) OJ C 28 from 3.2.2006, pp. 42-46.
(2) OJ C 65 from 17.3.2006, pp. 92-93.

C 309/116

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.12.2006

2.4
In addition to the Committee's two opinions cited above
and the Commission's White Paper, the Sub-Committee and its
rapporteur have several additional sources of input:

— the summary records of the debates held in the EESC's
plenary sessions since June 2005, including the 20 April
2006 debate which was specifically geared to the issues
raised in the White Paper and listed above,

— the recommendations arising out of the working groups at
forum on

the EESC's 7-8 November 2005 stakeholders'
‘Bridging the Gap’ (Brussels),

— the summary records of the various discussions held in the

Communication Group,

— the Committee's own-initiative opinion addressed to the
June 2006 European Council, as adopted on 17 May 2006,

— the recommendations arising out of the working groups at
the EESC's 9-10 May 2006 decentralised stakeholders'
forum on ‘Bridging the Gap’ (Budapest).

2.5
This Opinion on the White Paper is divided into five
sections, matching the five issues identified in the Commission's
document, and is restricted to addressing one, or just a few,
key questions in each section.

3. General comments

3.1 Defining common principles: which way forward?

3.1.1
In the specific field of communicating Europe the role
of the Member States is essential. In many other areas it is busi-
ness, the social partners, parts of civil society. In short, it is
dynamic society itself that successfully plays a decisive role.
This is not the case for communicating Europe at large.

that

The Committee understands

3.1.3
the European
Commission's underlying concern in this context is the absence
of a true legal base on which EU information and communica-
tion activities can be based. The Committee has already
pronounced itself clearly on this issue. Notably, in Paragraph
3.7 of its 26 October 2005 opinion to the European Parliament
on the reflection period (3), the Committee called upon the
Commission: ‘to consider putting forward a legislative proposal
for a true Communications Policy, and thereby to confront the’
hidden ‘issue of the absent legal base which has resulted in so
many informal mechanisms and an unbalanced approach. The
tabling of such a proposal would, in the Committee's opinion,
itself encourage debate’.

3.1.4
The White Paper states that, at the end of the consul-
tation period, the Commission will ‘present the results of the
consultation and then consider whether to propose a Charter, a
Code of Conduct or other instrument.’ The Committee is
concerned by this language and sees risks in what would
appear to be the potential approach the Commission might
propose.

The Commission refers to ‘common principles and
3.1.5
norms’, basing itself on the practice in some Member States,
but such principles and norms go beyond communication and
information. A simple declaration of principles to which all
could agree — because in effect they already agree — would
bring no added value. On the other hand, a code or charter
could risk seeming restrictive. Moreover, such principles are
already enshrined in a number of basic texts. If, on the other
hand, the intention is to draft a code of conduct for the media
and other communication actors, this could risk being seen as
an attempt to manipulate the debate or to stifle Euro-sceptical
approaches. In addition, the aim of engaging all actors seems
unrealistic, since one of the lessons all institutions need to draw
from the referendum experiences in France and the Netherlands
is that a growing number of actors do not automatically
support the European integration process. Lastly, if all of the
actors the White Paper lists were to sign up to such a code, it
would imply that all had equal responsibility for the communi-
cation challenge facing the European Union. In the Committee's
opinion it would be misleading to give this impression since
the primary responsibility lies — and should be seen to lie —
with the Member State governments.

3.1.2
The fundamental question here is whether or not the
Committee would agree to the Commission's suggestion that
‘the common principles and norms that should guide informa-
tion and communication activities on European activities could
be enshrined in a framework document — for example, a Euro-
pean Charter or Code of Conduct on Communication. The aim
would be to engage all actors
(EU institutions, national,
regional and local governments, non-governmental organisa-
tions) in a common commitment to respecting those principles
and ensure that EU communication policy serves the citizens'
interest’.

3.1.6
The Committee notes with concern the Commission's
launching of a special web-based forum to seek views on the
desirability of such a framework document. Not all European
citizens have access to such a web-based approach. It would be
essential to back up the consultation exercise through other,
more traditional media.

(3) The reflection period: structure,

themes and framework for an
evaluation of the debate on the European Union, OJ C 28 from
3.2.2006, pp. 42-46.

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/117

3.2 How to reach out to the citizen?

issue should be openly discussed in the Council of Education
Ministers.

The Committee notes that

3.2.1
resources are
extremely limited. Moreover, the procedures imposed for the
disbursement of
the new
Financial Regulation, are undoubtedly impeding and discoura-
ging many well-intentioned civil society actions.

following the adoption of

financial

funds,

Successfully reaching out to citizens requires acting on
3.2.2
the reasons for their scepticism:
first, parts of society are
increasingly critical with the results and impacts of political
decisions on their living and working conditions. Second, there
is effectively a lack of political discourse and thus a need for
communication, but the design for this communication needs
to be changed to be successful.

Effective communication first of all requires a set of
3.2.3
clear and attractive messages, a clear vision that citizens accept.
Citizens want Europe to be a political project,
including a
socio-economic project, a European model, maintaining social
cohesion and improving competitiveness. Some countries have
shown that this is possible.

Communication is centralised and Europe centred. It
3.2.4
mainly takes place at European level between European actors
and institutions and people who are already close to the Euro-
pean project. In addition, it uses instruments — such as web-
based consultations — that tend to reach only selective groups
of citizens. To reach beyond them, communication activities
need to be developed that involve actors other than the Euro-
pean Union's institutions and those already close to the EU,
and debates need to be genuinely decentralised — that is, they
level,
need to take place at the national, regional and local
involving decision-makers and the media at those levels (who
in some cases need first to be convinced themselves).

3.2.5
In this context, the White Paper makes a number of
practical proposals, ranging from civic education to joint open
debates. The Committee is particularly supportive of the argu-
ments in favour of civic education. However, as the White
Paper acknowledges, TEC Article 149 states quite clearly that
the Member States alone remain responsible for the content of
teaching and the organisation of education systems. Once
again, therefore, there is a dual risk involved in the European
institutions arguing for enhanced civic education. On the one
hand, they risk being accused of interfering in the sovereign
affairs of the Member State governments, and on the other they
would be implicitly accepting the responsibility for something
for which, in reality, they have no responsibility.

3.2.7
This does not mean that the EU's institutions should
do nothing. On the contrary, all should concentrate more on
informing the European citizen about the way in which the
European Union adds value. Target audiences should be identi-
fied, and the EU's undoubted success
should be
promoted.

stories

3.2.8 More generally, citizens should be made to feel that
they are part of
fully transparent regulatory and decision-
making processes.

3.3 How to involve the media more effectively in communicating on

Europe?

3.3.1
Under this section the Commission suggests that the
EU institutions should be better equipped with communication
tools and capacities and explores ways of closing the ‘digital
divide’. The Committee regrets the fact that the Commission's
intended suggestion for a European press agency was dropped
from the final draft of the White Paper since, as initial reactions
demonstrated,
this would have provoked a broad-ranging
debate about the nature of the relationship between the Brus-
sels-based media and the EU's institutions.

3.3.2
The Committee is supportive of the measures set out
in this section. However, it calls for the Commission to make a
distinction between the specialised media and the general
media. As a rule, the specialised media are well informed and
provide informative coverage. The Committee would also stress
that television remains the primary vector for information for
most European citizens. It urges the Commission to take this,
and the way in which digital television is rapidly evolving, into
account
In this
in the elaboration of any overall strategy.
context, the Committee stresses the essential
importance of
communicating with citizens in their own language.

For its part, the Committee continues to update and
3.3.3
implement
its strategic communication plan. This includes
continuous review of its communication tools and their use,
and the exploration of innovative methods (the use of ‘Open
Space Technology’ in the 7-8 November 2005 (Brussels) and 9-
10 May 2006 (Budapest) stakeholders' forums on ‘bridging the
gap’ were notable examples of this).

3.4 What more can be done to gauge European opinion?

However,

its citizens'
3.2.6
the European Union needs
acceptance of a common destiny. To that end,
it would be
desirable that, as a part of education programmes in the
Member States, the European Union should be presented and
explained historically and currently as a common political
project of all of the member states and their populations. This

3.4.1
The Commission proposes networks of national
experts and an Observatory for European Public Opinion. The
Committee agrees with the basic thrust of the White Paper in
this area. It agrees in particular that the European Union has a
viable tool in the form of Eurobarometer, although it believes
that the Commission should also seek to develop links and
synergies with national opinion polling organisations.

C 309/118

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.12.2006

the

central

is good at

between the two institutions. Cooperation between the two
institutions
the
Committee feels that much more could be done to encourage
synergies between the resources of the Commission and the
Committee at the decentralised level. Once again, this is an
area that should be fleshed out in the addendum to the post-
White Paper addendum to the 7 November 2005 protocol.

level. However,

4. Recalling the Committee's previous recommendations

4.1
The Committee recalls its previous recommendations to
the Commission in the communication context, particularly
those set out in the annex to its opinion on The Reflection
Period: structure, themes and framework for an evaluation of
the debate on the European Union (CESE 1249/2005 (4)) and
its May opinion addressed to the 15-16 June 2006 European
Council.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

3.4.2
The Committee also feels that the Commission in par-
ticular is not yet sufficiently exploiting existing mechanisms for
sounding out public opinion, such as the European Economic
In that context, the Committee was
and Social Committee.
happy to note the declarations of intention set out in the new
Protocol of Cooperation between the European Commission
and the European Economic and Social Committee (signed on
7 November 2005). More structured use of the Committee as a
sounding board is something that should be developed in the
context of the post-White Paper addendum to the 7 November
2005 protocol of cooperation.

3.5 Doing the job together

3.5.1
Here, the Commission lists a number of new, struc-
tured forms of cooperation. It notes the role already being
played by the European Economic and Social Committee and
refers to the 7 November 2005 new protocol of cooperation

Brussels, 6 July 2006.

(4) OJ C 28 from 3.2.2006, pp. 42-46.