|
The European
Parliament adopted a resolution on the White Paper on a European
communication policy, based on the own-initiative report drafted by Luis Herrero-Tejedor
(EPP-DE, ES). The resolution was adopted with 285 votes in favour to 54
against with six abstentions. Communication policy and the European
public sphere:Parliament welcomed the White Paper and saw the need to improve communication between
the EU and its citizens. It felt, however, that certain principles on the
two-way nature of communication did not find any practical expression in the
White Paper. It called on the Commission to specify how it intended to take
into account citizens' views and suggested that possible initiatives such as'Agora', a body that Parliament has decided to set up for the purpose of
consultation with civil society representatives, be incorporated. The
Commission was urged to support the creation of a European public sphere,
primarily structured through national, local and regional media. Parliament
called upon Member States to encourage the national public audiovisual
channels adequately to inform the citizens about the policies conducted at
European level. Definition of common principles:Parliament did not
consider it appropriate to submit itself to a code of conduct that regulated
its communication with EU citizens. It asked the Commission to propose a
draft interinstitutional agreement defining the common principles that could
channel cooperation between the European institutions as regards
communication. The Commission was urged to explore the possibility of
launching of a genuine Community programme, for information and communication
on Europe, in order to improve existing interinstitutional partnership
mechanisms in this field. Parliament emphasised the importance of reference
to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and a Constitution for Europe. Reinforcing the role of citizens: the development of a local European administration, able to support
the numerous existing European Union information points, would help to form
strong direct links between the Union and its citizens. It would improve
citizens" access to the European initiatives and programmes that affect
them. In this connection, there was a need for a thoroughgoing review and
rethink of the work carried out to date by the information offices in Member
States. Parliament felt that their public relations activities did not appeal
to citizens and the resources earmarked for them could be used far more
efficiently. They should be more political and less bureaucratic. Parliament
went on to state that, in order to reach the citizen, it was important to
communicate better and show the relevance and impact of EU decisions for
daily life through cooperation with regional and local institutions. Emphasis
should be placed on communicating regularly to the citizens about relevant
regional and local projects in which the EU had participated, with the
objective of favouring a common European project. On the
question of consultation with stakeholders and the public, Parliament
considered that key proposals could be accompanied by an additional section
in the impact assessment specifying how citizens´ concerns have been taken
into account when drafting the proposal. Working with the media and new
technologies:stressing the importance of the media as intermediaries, opinion formers,
and carriers of messages to the citizen in the European public sphere,
Parliament asked the commission to define with precision, which role it would
like to assign to the media. A formula must be found that involved national,
regional and local media more closely in communication policy, for which the
use of alternative media as a communication channel should also be
considered. Furthermore, European cooperation between media and journalists
benefited reporting on the EU. Parliament asked the Commission to set up, as
part of the budget, a European Fund for (Investigative) Journalism that supported
projects in which journalists from several Member States together explored a
European subject in depth and apply it to the differences in local and
regional situations. Parliament
welcomed the withdrawal of the proposal on the creation of an EU news agency.
It recommended that the Commission use clear and concise language when
communicating with the media and citizens, and that it did so systematically
in the official languages of their Member State of origin or residence. EU
jargon increased rather than closes the gap between the EU institutions and
citizens. Understanding European public opinion: the establishment of an
Observatory for European Public Opinion was regarded as questionable in the
short term. Parliament considered that before such a task was carried out,
more coordinated use should be made of the data and resources already
available. It moved on to call for Eurobarometer personnel to carry out an
exhaustive opinion survey in order to gauge exactly how well informed
Community citizens were, distinguishing them according to their country of
origin, socio-professional category, and political leanings. Collaboration:Parliament asked theCommission to draw up concrete proposals for
the implementation of the communication policy and to evaluate its legal and
financial implications. The work of the Interinstitutional Group on
Information (IGI) should be analysed to see if improvements were possible. Parliament
reiterated that the EU was often viewed as a single whole by citizens, who
were not thought to understand the finer distinctions between the
institutions. The respective communication policies of each institution
should therefore be coordinated in a joint approach, while respecting the
responsibilities and autonomy of each of them. There needs to be an annual
interinstitutional debate for the purpose of adopting a joint declaration on
the objectives and means of implementing this policy.
|
