You are currently browsing the daily archive for November 27th, 2008.
Europe is not a sexy and easy digestible product, but it is important and it makes sense. Europe has been for a long time a project driven by some key political actors and a rather small political elite.
Margot Wallström, Vice President of the European Commission
Available at: Europa.eu [ edited ]
Humboldt Universität zu Berlin – Walter-Hallstein-Institut – Lecture – Forum Constitutionis Europae
Berlin, 25th November 2008
Référence: SPEECH/08/649 Date: 25/11/2008
Communication is an essential link between individuals and the world. And communication is a tool for democracy. In democratic societies citizens need to know what the decision makers actually do and they must have the means to scrutinize them. The right to vote is clearly a cornerstone to democracy, but the right to know should be just as important.
I chose three main questions which I would like to answer tonight:
1. What are the challenges we face today?
2. Will the European Union be able to tackle these challenges and how?
3. And how do we communicate (this) efficiently?
1. I will focus on four key challenges Europe has to deal with:
First, climate change. UN-Secretary General Ban Ki-moon described it as the “defining challenge of our age”. I can only agree and would add that it is a challenge that will not simply disappear. On the contrary, the reality of climate change is already with us. In the United Kingdom, 2006 was the warmest year since records began in 1659. On the global level, the ten hottest years have all been occurred since 1990. There were three times as many extreme weather conditions and severe natural disasters during the 1990ies compared to the 1960ies.
But it is not only nature suffering from the daily impact of climate change. The consequences also affect mankind: damaged harvests and lack of water lead to starvation, damaged economies lead to waves of refugees and political instability. There can be hardly any issue demanding results more urgently than addressing climate change. But there is hope, and I will come back to that in the context of the next question.
Second, the current financial crisis and the spill-over to the rest of the economy. Over the past decades we have seen some crisis, in Latin America the debt crisis in the 80ies, the Asian financial crisis in 1997/98, in Argentina huge economic problems 2001. But what piled up now, triggered by the subprime mortgage crisis with roots some years ago, is unprecedented. Beginning with failures in large financial institutions in the US, it rapidly evolved into a global crisis resulting in a number of European bank failures, declines in various stock indexes and large reductions in the market value of equities. Not limited to the financial sector, we have seen already a spill over to the other sectors of the economy.
Loss of confidence and lack of trust in the credit sector and elsewhere have led to a situation of anxiety. A global recession and growing unemployment seem to be unavoidable. This is too much for individual states to deal with, given the interdependence of markets in a globalised world. There is no “terminator” who could stop alone the crisis and bring economy back on track. Only cooperation and coordination of measures will lead to the best possible effects.
Third, the transatlantic relations. As mentioned before the current financial crisis is only the latest event showing us the need for cooperation and concerted action, involving key actors on both sides of the Atlantic. Neither Europe nor America can take on today’s challenges single-handed. Money has no boundaries, whilst our thinking might have. Due to the inter-linkage of our economies investments in one part of the world might trigger effects in another. And with stock trading the effects might arrive in some minutes. Especially in the financial markets the US had dominated the rule making and the view how to regulate the market (or to be more bluntly how not to regulate it). Also other policy areas leave a huge margin for improvement to the US administration, just to mention climate change. With the newly elected President I hope for a new start for the transatlantic relations. I hope for stronger commitment to issues like multilateralism, democracy and the Millennium Development Goals. As Barack Obama said in his speech here in Berlin four months ago: “Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity. here is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one.”
Fourth, democracy. The European Union is often attacked for its ‘democratic deficit’, namely its deficiencies in representation, transparency and accountability, as well as its lack of popular support. Well, the EU is built on a (for almost 30 years) directly elected Parliament, on representatives of the directly elected national governments in the Council and on the Commission which has been nominated by Member States and approved by the European Parliament. This is a solid democratic fundament. However, it does not exclude that there is a margin – and need – for improvement. How can we better anchor the decision making on European level with the desires of the people? How can we increase accountability? And how can we progress on transparency and openness? These will be key issues to better link people and politics (decision makers). And key elements to strengthen democratic control. To give one example: Negotiations on the climate package should not be done behind closed doors, but in a transparent way, in a way that allows the public to follow what is going on.
Plan D has been a success and the new Debate Europe builds on these experiences. The audiovisual strategy fits in that perspective as well. I am convinced that to empower citizens by giving them access to information will put them in a position to hold an informed debate on EU affairs.
2. But will the EU be able to tackle these challenges and how?
As a colleague has put it: “If you are not trying to find a solution, you are part of the problem”. I can assure you: the European Union is trying to find solutions. That is what the European Union is all about – a cooperative venture that transcends geographic, linguistic and cultural boundaries. Respecting subsidiarity the European Union has shown in various policy fields its relevance and added value where Member States alone would not be able to tackle the challenges. It has delivered impressive results and is an inspiring model for other continents.
The crisis and the tackling of the effects to the real economy should not make us focusing solely on economic affairs and turning a blind eye to environmental issues. We should see it as an opportunity to get things right and a chance to boost innovation. It is worrying to see how some voices who had been signing up to the green goals last year now plead to move away from their commitments. Lately, these voices get more intense in Germany as well. With reference to the crisis everything else seems to have only third or fourth priority. But watering down or postponing the decisions taken on the climate change package will be the wrong signal. From my former experience as Commissioner for Environment I can ensure you that climate change will not wait until the financial crisis and the spill-over effects are over. As I mentioned before, climate change is happening now and therefore we have to continue with our efforts to make our planet an attractive place for future generations.
How can this be done? To give one brief example: by moving rapidly to a low-carbon economy. In 2007 the European Union agreed to cut the carbon dioxide emissions by at least 20% by the year 2020 and to invest heavily in renewable energies so that they provide 20% of our energy needs by the year 2020. Our aim is to make the European Union far more energy-efficient and far less dependent on imported fossil fuels. We also need to invest more in bio-fuels and to produce our own share. It is not a clever and sustainable approach to depend on imported ethanol from Brazil, as turning maize or sugar cane into fuel takes food from the mouths of hungry people. That is not the type of smart growth I referred to. Smart growth also means investing a lot more in scientific research to develop new technologies. If Europe can be a world leader in “green” innovation it will make us more competitive and create many new jobs.
"The price of inaction is far greater than the cost of making a mistake".
3. Let me now come to the crucial issue of tonight: how do we communicate (this) efficiently?
All of you will agree that even the best policy is useless if it is not known, if it is not properly communicated. How citizens’ support can be achieved if they simply do not know what is they are supporting?
“No one will fall in love with Europe” – this quote of Jacques Delors is still a fact today. Europe is not a sexy and easy digestible product, but it is important and it makes sense. Europe has been for a long time a project driven by some key political actors and a rather small political elite. Certainly, during the first decades of shaping the European architecture and the construction of the European “house” there was a deeply emotional appeal. But nowadays citizens are somehow used to the European idea and take it for granted, without inquiring about the details of the functioning nor of the policies.Therefore, communicating Europe is certainly a difficult task, given the complexity of the Union made of 27 Member States, its evolving nature and because perceptions of the European project vary and are coloured to a large extent by national history and circumstances. And not to forget there are 23 different languages. I guess this challenge would drive most of the PR experts into despair.
The Lisbon treaty debate has shown that the issue is not just one of redressing ignorance and indifference. It is about serving the needs of healthy democratic debate, and ensuring that people have the facts they need and require – and are entitled to – to make their personal judgement. Communication is the response to the right of the citizens to be informed. And not least it contributes to the fact that the European institutions must be accountable, transparent, open and responsive if they are to remain legitimate in the public eye.
It is my conviction that communication is not a one-way-street, it has to be two-way. Not monologue, but dialogue. Listening as well as speaking. And I believe that the dialogue has to go beyond the usual clients, political leaders and traditional stakeholders. The dialogue should involve civil society, social partners, national parliaments and political parties, and not to forget individual citizens. It should reflect the social reality of the whole European Union.
It is essential to have this dialogue between the citizens and the policy makers in Europe. This should happen in a way as broad as possible: people should discuss what they would like the EU to do and what not, what the future of Europe could look like, what they expect and wish. It should be a lively, critical and contradictory debate. The EU was not created for the sake of bureaucrats in Brussels but to achieve concrete and tangible benefits for the citizens in areas where the individual Member State can not deliver adequately. Therefore the EU agenda must reflect what people want. That is the governing principle of democracy.
Against that background we have developed a completely new approach to European communication. An approach which puts citizens at the heart of European policies. Let me briefly explain my approach’s guiding principles: Explain better our policies: speak in plain simple language, spell out the tangible benefits of our policies for the everyday life; Listen better to people: via opinion-formers and stakeholders – particularly civil society and Parliamentarians – and by carefully exploiting opinion polls; Going local and connecting with citizens: We need to stop having a monolithic message from Brussels but to address each audience through its own tradition and culture and via the channels they are interested in. This is certainly the most difficult task and the biggest challenge of the communication strategy.
Do we have an information deficit? I do not think so. There is plenty of information on the EU and how it works. Some say even too much. Feedback from users tells us that finding out what is relevant information is often more difficult than getting the information itself. And you sent out information around the globe in a millisecond, but it might take years to get into the heads of the targeted audience. What is necessary however, are improvements in transmitting our messages. Let me point to five areas:
First, we have to get rid of Brussels jargon such as “the open method of coordination” or “comitology”. We have to talk to people in understandable terms, explain what we do and why and at the same time become much more professional in listing the Union’s achievements. That is why I initiated the so called citizens’ summary. This has to be added to new proposals, to explain in plain language the content and impact of our initiatives.
Second, we have to be clearer where to find useful information and help. In the jungle of various help desks and services of the EU, dedicated to citizens and businesses alike, it is more like navigating through Skylla and Charybdis, while it should be like rowing on the Havel. That is why we will establish a one-stop-shop, where everyone can turn to and receives answers and help.
Third, Europe must use the right tools and the right channels in communicating with citizens. Printed brochures are shining brightly, but they do not reflect the new modes of communication. TV, radio, Internet – that is what people use. There we can reach them. And with these new channels there is also the opportunity to have it not one-way but two-ways: interactive with direct feed-back. In addition, Europe has to be better defended. “EU bans bag-pipes” or “EU wants to implement speed limits on German roads”. Certainly, we can not be aware of each and every false story. And unfortunately we can not correct these messages all over Europe. But we have to take up a stronger stance and fight back. Rebuttal! Fighting the fog and the myths about Europe! We have put on a specific website some of the stories spiced up by newspapers and turn it right. Here I would expect also the national, regional or even local politicians to be more active. It is also for them with the authority on their respective level to rebut false accusations.
Fourth, we also have to ensure that public debate finds its way into the European decision and policy-making process, that citizens get their entitled right to be heard. Communication does not happen in an isolated vacuum, but in the public sphere. It is the public sphere of 27 Member States and of 23 languages. And to make it even more complicated: it is the public sphere of 3660 TV channels in Europe, of 25.000 journalists and of 480 million citizens.
Communication about European policies needs to go beyond national boundaries, with cross-border communication channels promoting debate and dialogue on issues of common concern. That has been stimulated by some Commission initiatives of the last years.Plan D has been a success and the new Debate Europe builds on these experiences. The audiovisual strategy fits in that perspective as well. I am convinced that to empower citizens by giving them access to information will put them in a position to hold an informed debate on EU affairs.
Fifth, “communicating Europe” must be done in partnership.
One key lesson has to be understood: a sustained effort must be made to explain the benefits that the European Union brings to each Member States and to each citizen in a much more effective way. It is a raison d’être of the European project, and not only a communication issue.The Commission alone cannot possibly bridge the gap between the European Union and its citizens. The Commission needs to cooperate and coordinate. It needs to work in partnership with the other institutions, the Member States, national and regional parliaments, civil society and, of course, the media.
For far too long, Member States and Institutions have each communicated on European issues individually – not to say sometimes contradictory. And for far too long Member States did take part in the blame game, where they sign up to decisions and sell it as their own achievement if positively perceived at home, but use the Commission as a scapegoat if negatively perceived. That is why we have pleaded for quite some time to have a common understanding between the actors of “communicating Europe”. Just one month ago the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission have signed a political agreement to address in the future the communication challenge together.
Member States and Institutions have already started to put the agreement in practice, by agreeing, for the first time, on joint communication priorities for 2009. These are: the 2009 European Parliament elections; energy and climate change and the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Iron Curtain. As the British say: “The proof of the pudding lies in the eating” – and the European elections 2009 will certainly be a first test case whether we can achieve a higher turnout and stimulate more interest for European politics and policies.
End
Communicating with citizens is important for deepening democracy, legitimacy and accountability. The Commission has set out a clear vision for a European Communication Policy. A policy that serves the citizens. The strategies we have adopted are continuous policies. Some of them already produced results and proved success in some aspects. Progress will take time, and efforts will not stop with the end of this mandate, as the next step should be to further empower and involve European citizens in EU affairs. To close with a quote of famous Meister Eckhart: “The price of inaction is far greater than the cost of making a mistake”.
Erasmus programme will be challenged to bring more integration within the EU. The US does not have a similar programme that includes so many different cultures and places.
Published: Thursday 29 September 2005 , EurActiv.
The Commission says that co-operation among member states is key to avoid the situation in the US where the number of incoming non-EU students has plummeted.
DG Education’s Director General Nikolaus van der Pas told a Friends of Europe seminar entitled ‘Can Europe close the education gap?’ that co-operation among member states is key to avoid the scenario in the US where student numbers have dropped dramatically.
His comments come with widespread terrorist security concerns prompting some member states to clamp down more in terms of visas. The fear is that this may deter students from applying to European universities, as has happened in the US. So far the UK and Australia have benefited in particular from the US problems, said Mr van der Pas.
During the debate, on 27 September, Mr Van der Pas also explained that a ‘China window’, with special funding coming from DG External Relations, had been set up within the Erasmus Mundus programme, to encourage Asian students to come to European universities.
Reacting to a question from EurActiv, he said that the Commission was not concerned that private funding in member state educational systems could lead to undue interference in syllabuses because “quality assurance was dealt with under the Bologna Process and this will increase”.
There are huge amount of students heading from universities in the newest Member States to those in the EU-15 and far fewer students going in the other direction, says Education and Culture Commissioner Viviane Reding in an interview with EurActiv.
The Luxembourg-born commissioner believes that the internet information system will allow students to find out about the opportunities available and is confident that EU-15 students will head East when they find out that they can get a good education for less money. She is optimistic that students from the EU-15 will, over time, get to know about the high quality universities in Eastern Europe. “Most students today don’t travel and that’s why I’m eager to increase the numbers of Erasmus students,” adds the commissioner.
She is concerned about situations where study grants are insufficient because living costs are much higher. “If you want to go to Paris then just affording accommodation is a problem,” she points out, adding that this is something which will have to be sorted out over time.
She highlights that the Bologna Process, under which students across the EU would spend three years doing their Bachelors and two years on their Masters, envisages an EU system of peer review quality controls. “The recognition of diplomas is in the hands of national ministers and will become more transparent under the Bologna Process because of the control of quality of universities, which will, I believe, be to the advantage of students”.
Her view is that these controls will drive up standards because they will enable people to make comparisons between universities. She points out that “most of our public universities are very good and that will become clear” but adds that this does not mean she is against private universities, many of which, such as the Bocconi Institute in Milan, offer a recognised diploma and very high quality content. However, she is keen to eliminate poor quality commercial education where it exists and is worried about what she calls “university business” where citizens are unaware of what is valuable and what is not.
Reding also notes that the first Erasmus Mundus European Masters students will graduate in the summer of 2006 and is hopeful that this scheme, which she regards as a flagship of quality, will launch reforms in universities and collaboration between universities so that students gain a broader cultural experience during their studies.
Recent Comments