51996IR0220

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the 'Communication from the Commission on the multilingual information society and the Proposal for a Council Decision on the adoption of a multiannual programme to promote the linguistic diversity of the Community in the information society` (96/C 337/08)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the 'Communication from the Commission on the multilingual information society and the Proposal for a Council Decision on the adoption of a multiannual programme to promote the linguistic diversity of the Community in the information society` [COM(95) 486 final - 95/0263 (CNS)];

Having regard to the decision taken by the Commission on 23 November 1995 to consult the Committee of the Regions on the matter;

Having regard to its decision of 18 July 1995 to direct Commission 7 'Citizens' Europe, Research, Culture, Youth and Consumers` to draw up the relevant Opinion;

Having regard to the Draft Opinion (CdR 6/96 fin) adopted by Commission 7 on 27 February 1996 (Rapporteur: Mr Kosmopoulos);

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community and, in particular, Articles 128 and 130(3) thereof;

Whereas the European Council meeting in Corfu on 24 and 25 June 1994 underlined the importance of the cultural and linguistic aspects of the information society;

Whereas the European Council meeting in Cannes on 26 and 27 June 1995 restated the importance to the Community of its linguistic diversity;

Whereas the launch of the information society is of vital importance for all of Europe's regions and inhabitants and may bring them new major benefits;

Whereas this information society can make an effective contribution in the field of new communications technologies by creating new openings on multilingual world and European markets;

Whereas within the context of the information society, the transfer of information between languages must be improved and supported;

Whereas the Community must create an environment which will help to strengthen the language industries that draw on new information technologies;

Whereas policies in support of languages within the EU belong to those cultural policies for which the Member States and the regions are responsible, and whereas all measures taken at Community level must therefore respect the principle of subsidiarity;

Whereas the Committee of the Regions has already expressed views on the matter in past Opinions, and especially its Opinions on the Communication entitled 'Europe's way to the information society: an action programme` and the Ariane and INFO 2000 programmes,

adopted the following Opinion at its 13th Plenary Session on 12 and 13 June (meeting of 12 June).

1. General comments

1.1. We are passing through a period of profound change in human communications, with the introduction of new types of information and communications media. Information and communications services are becoming globalized, multimedia advances are being made in all fields (and not just in the field of television) and interactive services look set to grow. The means of communication which we use employ a combination of sound, images and text, and the implications which this has are very important: they present us with a challenge which must be faced and examined.

1.2. In today's information society, increasingly based on the exchange of opinions, ideas, suggestions and views, information sources must be equally accessible to all of Europe's citizens, no matter what their mother tongue might be.

1.3. Europe's linguistic diversity should cover not only the languages spoken in Europe but also the sign languages for the deaf. These are to be regarded as the mother tongue or first language of most deaf persons. Since sign languages are visual languages, their promotion is particularly interesting from the computer technology angle.

1.4. Because of the richness and diversity of its linguistic heritage, Europe has a challenge to face. If we are to avoid a situation arising whereby European citizens become isolated and ill- or misinformed, full support must be ensured for the multilingual media, both electronic and print.

1.5. The initiative under review will help considerably in establishing a single European communications policy, while contributing to economic and social cohesion between European regions and enabling European citizens to participate more fully and actively in European events.

1.6. The benefits would be numerous, and considerable progress would result in removing existing language barriers.

1.7. We are currently facing the third, and most radical, linguistic revolution of all. Communications methods are being transformed once again, this time by computerbased technology. Steps must be taken to prevent the pervasiveness of new technologies from jeopardizing the linguistic and cultural diversity of European society.

1.8. If this occurred, some European citizens could be prevented from benefiting from our cultural heritage, playing a full part in the democratic process and communicating freely with all levels of society.

1.9. One of the factors contributing to the preservation of democracy and freedom of speech is the language which each citizen uses to participate in economic, social and cultural life. Cultural life is still intimately bound up with language, since it is through language that each people's cultural identity has been formed. This question therefore requires a radical approach.

1.10. It is vital that Europe's information society remains multilingual. To propose removing controls on individuals at internal EU borders is meaningless if citizens are unable to communicate with each other. It would be helpful, from this point of view, to set up a small number of pilot projects to facilitate the transmission of certain EU and Member State information in certain EU minority languages. The ultimate aim would be to extend this experiment to all regional languages once these projects have proved their worth. These measures must be incorporated in existing programmes and must not have any financial implications for local and regional authorities.

1.11. If linguistic diversity in Europe is to be safeguarded, citizens must at the same time demonstrate their willingness to become multilingual. Citizens with different native languages can interact more easily if they are willing to learn each other's languages. The European Union should contribute via measures to help the Member States promote multilingualism. Such measures should not be confined to compulsory language teaching schools.

1.12. Consequently, the challenge posed by the newly-emerging information society is to maintain its linguistic diversity and to ensure that all its members can participate in the new order, profit from the advantages offered to them, and enjoy equal opportunities in all processes.

1.13. This is why it is first and foremost the responsibility of all EU Member States to help preserve Europe's linguistic richness and diversity. The EU's official working languages will have to continue to be respected as such and the Member States will have to apply the provisions of the European Charter of regional or minority languages so as to guarantee the rights of citizens who speak other languages.

1.14. Educational establishments can play an important part here by offering appropriate training and helping to establish a firm place for all mother tongues in the development of the world information society.

1.15. The private sector and the public services sector are playing an increasingly important role in the creation of specialist products tailored to the local traits and requirements of the inhabitants of Europe's regions.

1.16. Lastly, it is clear that great care will have to be taken so that the new technologies and the emergence of the information society can contribute to safeguarding linguistic diversity, by creating a solid basis for drawing up research programmes and for implementing technology transfer in this field.

2. Specific comments

The Committee of the Regions believes that the following basic guidelines could help to achieve linguistic diversity:

2.1. The mass media should give further consideration to the idea of using an appropriate infrastructure capable of reaching a wider audience so as to be in a position to provide a growing number of EU citizens with access to the information they supply.

2.2. The imminent development of the new technologies and services and the emergence of an information society must conform to the multilingual system, so that it can help encourage the establishment of a single infrastructure in a united Europe.

2.3. Communications between the different EU institutions, as well as between national administrations, should be carried out on a multilingual basis in order to facilitate the exchange of information through proper multilingual translation.

2.4. It is necessary here and now to establish the bases for a European infrastructure for translation work, for general multilingual dictionaries and for specialist terminologies based on concepts agreed on at European or world level.

2.5. A campaign bringing together educational programmes must be launched to raise citizens' awareness, encouraging them to participate actively in creating the infrastructure for a multilingual information society. This campaign should be coordinated with existing programmes in this field.

2.6. Rules accepted by all the EU Member States should be drawn up to ensure that information society products marketed in the Member States are accompanied by information material in the languages of the consumers and users, for easy trouble-free use.

2.7. Guidelines must be issued so that similar products imported into the EU must be accompanied by the same information material in the languages used where they are marketed.

2.8. It is necessary to set up international cooperation bodies whose aim would be to ensure compliance with both the multilingual regime and the rules governing it.

2.9. This programme should be open to all native European languages, regardless of whether they are officially recognized at EU or Member State level. This demand does not mean that these languages must be promoted to the rank of official EU languages or EU working languages, but it will guarantee that all of Europe's citizens, regardless of their mother tongue, will have access to the benefits of technological developments in the field of information and communication.

2.10. The proposal for a Council Decision will have to be amended so that the Committee of the Regions can be formally involved in the interinstitutional decision-making process. For this purpose, 'having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions` must be included in the preamble and a reference to the Committee of the Regions must be added to Article 6.

2.11. The Committee of the Regions believes that the proposed EU financial contribution to set up the programme is inadequate, and may compromise its results. It therefore proposes doubling the suggested amount, giving priority to those Action Lines where the creation of framework systems is of greatest importance, such as language database networks (Action Line 1) and language tools to improve communication in the European public sector (Action Line 3).

2.12. The Commission's proposal highlights the responsibility of Member States and regions in the development of language databases and specific tools for their own languages. Neither the national and regional financial resources available, nor the economic interests involved, are the same for all the various languages. The Committee of the Regions is of the view that the concept of European linguistic solidarity should be introduced, and expressed in practical terms via support from EU structural and regional funds.

2.13. Lastly, given the content of the proposals included in the programme, the COR wonders whether the Commission's decision to select Treaty Article 130(3) (Industry) as the sole legal basis for its documents is appropriate, and whether it should not be taken as a joint legal basis together with Article 128 (Culture). Article 130(3) would suffice as the legal basis only if the Communication were confined to the economic aspects of linguistic diversity. If, on the other hand, language is being promoted as an essential element of culture, Article 128 must be used, with the consequent requirement of unanimity in the Council.

3. Conclusions

3.1. If it is to be successful, the creation of a multilingual society requires realistic, rational planning, consideration of different viewpoints and a high level of cooperation between those producing and distributing information services and those supplying the means, services and systems which cater for linguistic diversity. This should be achieved, inter alia, by encouraging cooperation and by defining frameworks within which local, regional and national activities can be aligned. These objectives can be met if research can pinpoint any obstacles which may exist and if appropriate solutions are put forward, providing the basis for practical arrangements.

3.2. The COR considers this approach to be necessary in order to avoid the multiplication of disparate, incompatible activities. Nevertheless, it would underline the scale of existing risks, which are aggravated by the very low level of Community financial backing.

3.3. Given that fostering European linguistic solidarity would have definite economic implications for those regions lagging behind significantly in language terms, particularly where tourism and product promotion are concerned, the Committee of the Regions calls upon the national and Community authorities to use a suitable portion of the structural funds to launch and operate the programme in question. The programme could in many regions be used to strengthen already existing projects.

3.4. The COR also considers that international cooperation in the field of language infrastructures and translation tools can be fitted into the EU's major economic and technical cooperation programmes with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean area, etc., in order to facilitate the development of third country national and regional structures and their amalgamation with Community infrastructures.

3.5. Finally, the COR would point out that the programme is an expression of the European Union's intention to press ahead with the important task of stimulating industrial growth in Europe and thus does not primarily respond to needs expressed directly by citizens at a local and regional level.

The COR would also pinpoint the following aspect that has not been fully clarified or considered in the Commission Communication:

Computerized systems are an excellent tool for systematization, generalization and dissemination of terms, vocabularies, dictionaries and other standardized information. In the first place they are a tool for general, classified and strictly defined material. Languages and linguistic expressions, on the other hand, are a cultural phenomenon, intimately tied in with the cultural sphere where they are used. While computerized systems are designed with a view to simplification, language systems are based on a wealth of nuances and expressions.

The COR therefore stresses that the programme presented has not paid sufficient attention to these two aspects and suggests that the Commission Communication should be supplemented by a discussion that highlights this contradiction between the two objectives of the programme.

Done at Brussels, 12 June 1996.

The Chairman of the Committee of the Regions

Pasqual MARAGALL i MIRA