Brussels to scale down EU communications proposal[fr][de] 

The prospect of a low turnout at the next European elections in 2009, and the upcoming difficult ratification processes for the EU's new 'Reform Treaty' to be adopted later this year, is placing the EU's communication policies higher on the agenda.

Margot Wallström, Commission Vice-President in charge of institutional relations and communications strategy, was hoping to resolve internal disagreements and adopt a new ambitious communications plan in an attempt to regain citizens' trust ahead of the European elections in 2009.

But her proposed new plan, to be adopted by the College of Commissioners on 3 October, is to be scaled down following the rejection of a proposed legal basis for an integrated communications policy by MEPs in November last year.

Wallström now hopes that, despite lacking a legal basis, the institutions will be able to agree on a set of political priorities to be implemented by member states and the EU institutions.

A draft copy  of the proposal, obtained by EurActiv and entitled "Communicating Europe in Partnership", proposes:

• Greater cooperation among institutions

The Commission proposes an inter-institutional agreement to improve cooperation among the EU's institutions on how they communicate. At the same time, it underlines that this will not "prevent each EU institution from having separate communication activities". The concrete terms of a decision-making procedure to define comunication priorities are yet to be determined and, according to Parliament sources, they are likely to prove cumbersome, limiting the potential of having ambitious initiatives in this area.

• Greater involvement from member states

The Commission proposes to conclude so-called 'management partnership' agreements with member states as the "main instruments to carry out joint communication initiatives". The aim is to "go local" in communicating the EU and to encourage "active European citizenship". The persistent Brussels 'blame game' where member states and the Commission put the responsibilities on each other's shoulders for failing to explain EU policies to voters is seen as one of the main factors behind bad EU communications in general (EurActiv 18/01/07).

The partnerships would be concluded on a voluntary basis and tailor-made to each country's needs and challenges.

• Fostering European Public Spaces

The paper proposes the development of "European Public Spaces" in the representations at national level. This should lead to "joint communication plans" between the Commission, Parliament and member state, which would allow communication to be specifically tailored to each country. The French, for example, were highly suspicious of the Commission's proposed Services Directive, which played a key role in the popular rejection of the draft Constitution in 2005. But the proposal got a much better reception in other countries such as Ireland and the United Kingdom, making the case for a differentiated approach.

Other proposals include taking a look at the role of school education, strengthening Eurobarometer polls and setting up information networks.

The Commission further sets out its plan to strengthen new media, such as the internet and audiovisual communication and follow up on "Plan D" civil society dialogue projects. The Commission will also "take stock of Plan D and present proposals to widen the democratic debate throughout Europe". Even though it will be too late to feed into the Reform Treaty, this shall be done with a view to its ratification and the run-up to the 2009 European elections.

Meanwhile, Communication Commissioner Margot Wallström is still pushing to insert a formula acknowledging the need for EU communication in the draft Reform Treaty, which is currently being finalised.

Speaking at a civil society event on 27 September, Wallström said: "European democracy and communication policy are not about 'getting the people onboard'. It is about putting them in the driving seat."
She added: "For that, we need to join forces with the other EU institutions and civil society. We have to communicate Europe in partnership."

Green MEP Helga Trüpel told EurActiv in an interview that "Parliament, the Commission and member states have quite different views on what a joint approach to communication policy implies. Every institution prefers to stick to its own powers instead of pooling abilities together," she explains. Nevertheless, Trüpel says she continues to support a legal basis for communication policy "because this is the only way to provide for a sustainable means to act".

Many stakeholders  have been critical, noting that concrete action is more important than mere debate on a "European Public Sphere". (see EurActiv 31/01/07). In its paper, the Commission recognises that "political decisions that have a significant impact on Europeans' day-to-day lives", such as those concerning the internal market, climate change, trade, energy policy, or migration, are the "best way of demonstrating the relevance of the EU to ordinary people". However, the Commission paper also cites discussions on REACH and the services directive, which are widely seen as having damaged the EU's image, as debates that should be encouraged.

Trüpel argues that an effective EU communication policy will do little if the policy content itself is imperfect. "The fact that we have a clearly under-funded Union, a Reform Treaty weak in ambition and recent legislation (Services Directive, REACH) that leaves behind too many questions in the blue are no help in creating 'good' communication – and winning the hearts and minds of citizens."