Government considers issue in depth
The continuation of public EU information services and
Europe Information was not a pushover for the
Government. It was discussed on three occasions by
various ministerial committees, and the final decision
was not made before the special budgetary negotiations
of August 1995. Operations recommenced on
November 1, 1995, four months later than planned.
During this interval, the service was maintained by the
Ministry for Foreign Affairs' Europe Information unit
and by a public service desk opened temporarily at the
New Student House in Helsinki, but the provincial EU
information desks remained closed.
The issue was discussed from many different angles
before the Government reached a decision to continue
the provision of public information. The primary
questions were whether there was an actual need for
the service and how to finance it. Finding an
appropriate organizational position for the public EU
information setup within the framework of the State
administration was a secondary consideration. The
libraries were considered a good location for the
regional information services, but the role of the
Ministry for Foreign Affairs as the responsible
organization was not regarded as entirely favourable.
However, no amendments were made to the original
proposal in this respect. The Ministry for Foreign
Affairs' Department for Press and Culture was found
the best home organization in practice, since it had
handled the operation from the very beginning. Issues
related to funding were discussed so thoroughly that
solutions were not reached until the next special
budgetary negotiations. Consensus was reached when
the Ministry for Foreign Affairs was allocated additional
funds for its Europe Information unit. Thus the Ministry
was not driven into a situation where the development
of other aspects of its representation network and
personnel would be jeopardized.
New round of negotiations on continuation
The Government had made a decision to continue EU
information services to the end of 1996. As the
reorganized operations got off to a good start at the
turn of 1995 and 1996, it was naturally a grim prospect
that everything would come to an end within 12
months. This is why the proposals for continuing
operations beyond 1997 and Finland's Presidency to
the year 2000 were made as soon as possible.
The matter was handled internally in the Ministry for
Foreign Affairs and in the EU Information Group set up
by the Prime Minister, but was not discussed by the
Government until May 31, 1996. For discussions in the
Government, the EU Information Group decided to
support the continuation of the service to the year
2000.
The same grounds were given to the Government for
the extension of the period to the end of 2000 as had
been given the year before.
The proposal underlined that Europe Information was
the only party in Finland providing information on the
EU from a national perspective, with its interest focused
on the ordinary citizen. Reference was made to the
latest opinion polls showing that 74% of the population
regarded their knowledge of issues related to Finland's
membership in the EU as poor. 63% wanted to have
more information on the EU and its impact. The
Portuguese and the Finns respectively returned the
poorest ratings for the availability of information in their
country. 28% of all Finns felt the provision of
information was good or fairly good, while 71% felt it
was poor or non-existent.
The arguments for the information service pointed out
that the viewpoint and assumptions of the EU
information provided by Europe Information were
national - unlike those of the EU institutions with
representation/information services in Finland - and that
Finland's own public information service followed the
principles of transparency and subsidiarity.
Major EU projects, such as the IGC, EMU, the euro
and enlargement of the Union, were considered to call
for intensified national information services for the
general public. Finland's Presidency of the EU in
autumn 1999 is also expected to present a challenge in
terms of information services in the home country, as is
the second Europarliamentary election in June 1999.
A sudden discontinuation of the service was also not
expected to go down well with public opinion: closing
down the public service might well increase
dissatisfaction with Finland's EU membership in the
provinces and would certainly be a blow to the
Government's efforts to increase transparency in EU
issues. Besides, one of the key issues defined by the
IGC was to bring the Union closer to individual citizens.
How could an EU information organization that
genuinely implemented the subsidiarity principle at
grass-roots level have been closed down?
As usual, Denmark and Sweden were turned to for
comparison. In both these countries public information
on the EU was organized on a permanent basis. This
was done at the beginning of 1996 in Sweden, while
Denmark launched its public information services 20
years after its accession.
One of the arguments in favour of the service was that
people actually used it. Contacts made during early
1996 exceeded 30,000, which means approximately
100,000 service contacts a year. All age and social
groups used the service.
However, at a Cabinet European Union Committee
meeting on May 31, 1996, the Government was not
ready to make a decision as proposed concerning the
continuation of information services beyond Finland's
Presidency and up to 2000 in accordance with the
budget proposal of 1997. On a proposal made by the
Minister for European Affairs, a supportive stand was
taken by making a decision-in-principle. Otherwise the
issue was left open until the budget negotiations. In the
special budgetary negotiations in August a unanimous
stand was adopted: the information service would
continue through 1997 and at least up to the year 2000.
In terms of continuity, the situation has now stabilized,
which has also removed the problems of work planning
and personnel motivation. In terms of organization, too,
a favourable development has taken place: as of
February 1, 1997 Europe Information became a
permanent unit within the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
New modes of operation during membership
When the problem of continuing the provision of
systematic public information on the EU had been
solved in autumn 1995, all energies could be
concentrated on restarting operations. Recruitment for the new posts of
fixed-term information officers was carried out
regionally. The new regional EU information officers,
more than 50% of whom were former employees of
Europe Information, began work in November 1995.
The everyday work of the service was based on
previously tested models. These models are described
in the preceding article by Pasi Natri. A major
difference was, however, that all regional EU
information officers were now supported by the
infrastructure of the provincial libraries, with closeness
to customers being the main advantage. As before, the
job description of a regional EU information officer
covered the maintenance of the public regional EU
information office and links with provincial NGOs,
authorities, media and educational institutions.
How, then, has Europe Information carried out the
information service in practice? The starting point was
that the service was to be impartial and versatile. This is
still true and reflected in the basic outlines laid down for
operations. This strict pre-accession policy continues
now that Finland is a member. An essential feature is
that the public are not presented with ready-made
solutions; they are offered a wide range of information,
on the basis of which they can form personal opinions
for or against membership or other EU-related issues.
The basic mission is clearly to distribute a broad
spectrum of factual information.
During a normal year of operations, regional EU
information officers give a total of approximately 500
lectures on a variety of EU subjects. Europe
Information distributes EU material to the provincial
media on a regular basis, and the regional EU
information officers facilitate the work of the reporters
by finding sources of information when required.
Knowledge of sources where EU information is
available is indeed perhaps one of the most important
areas of specialization for regional EU information
officers. The regional EU information officers of Europe
Information are among the best experts on EU sources
in Finland.
A wide range of publications have also been issued,
particularly in the form of general information that is
easy to understand: net pages, brochures and booklets.
The subjects vary according to demand. Since 1996
the emphasis has been on the Intergovernmental
Conference and EMU. An Internet home page was
opened at the end of 1995. The regional EU
information offices have also distributed EU material
produced by others, such as the European Commission
and a group known as Alternative to the EU.
Operations were successfully reinstated. By the end of
spring 1996, a total of 48,000 service contacts had
already taken place. The local authorities emerged as a
new group of customers, for definite gaps were found
in their EU capabilities. The provincial libraries proved
to be excellent locations for the information offices.
A list of the most frequently asked questions began to
emerge. People showed greatest interest in general
issues related to the EU and its organs, sources of
funding, and study and employment opportunities in
other EU countries. The top ten list now includes
queries concerning Economic and Monetary Union
(EMU), the Intergovernmental Conference and the
European Parliament. People also ask a lot of tricky
questions.
The 1996 top ten list looks like this:
- General EU information
- Studying and working in other Member States
- EMU and ERM
- Sources of funding
- The European Parliament
- EU programmes for companies (for ex. Phare, Tacis)
- Social policy and security
- The IGC
- The environment
- Tricky questions (anything under the sun)
A total of 100,000 customer contacts took place in
1996, and 150,000-200,000 publications were
distributed.
Europe Information and the first Europarliamentary election
As spring 1996 arrived, it soon became obvious that
the Europarliamentary election to be organized for the
first time in autumn 1996 was going to present a
complex challenge. The regional EU information
officers were given operating instructions based on the
principle that the operational guidelines would remain
unchanged.
In terms of the election, the job of Europe Information
was to provide a broad spectrum of factual information
on the EU and Finland's membership, and naturally also
on the European Parliament. As before, information
was to be distributed as background material to
support voters in making their own decisions. Europe
Information would treat all candidates and their
background groups equally and would thus not take a
stand on behalf of candidates with either favourable or
critical attitudes towards EU membership. It was also
decided that Europe Information would not take part in
any election events organized by individual candidates
or groupings or organize any events itself. The role of
Europe Information would be made known through info
spots on the radio and television.
From the viewpoint of Europe Information, the first
Europarliamentary election went well: the availability of
information did not become a theme of the election.
There seemed to be a sufficient amount of information
available to all. It also seemed that
the regional EU information offices of Europe
Information and other providers of information could
guarantee the availability of all basic background
information needed by voters to make their decisions.
After the election it seemed that no-one had had to
neglect voting on account of a lack of information.
Europe Information worked hard to become familiar to
the Finnish public. The Finnish Broadcasting Company
and the commercial TV channel MTV broadcast info
spots on Europe Information and its regional services
for a full month, and the provincial radio stations under
Radio Suomi featured a series of info spots produced in
cooperation with the provincial stations and Europe
Information's regional officers. A total of 5.8 million
viewers saw the TV spots.
The election presented no major problems to Europe
Information, and a lot of practical experience was
gained.
A great deal of uncertainty was felt by people about the
election system: queries were made throughout the
country. The fact that there were no election districts
caused great dissatisfaction. Ordinary voters apparently
felt that they were merely pawns in the national election
game and could not understand the sentence printed on
the ballot: "you are only allowed to vote for candidates
of your own district". Voters wondered how you could
be restricted to voting only for a candidate of your own
district, when all the candidates were standing for the
whole country.
The election clearly showed that there were major gaps
in people's EU knowledge. Central issues, such as
EMU and the IGC, are not well known. Knowledge on
the European Parliament was also poor. The availability
of EU information was not a subject of dispute or
discussion before or after the election. Thus there were
no problems in the supply of information - the
problems lay elsewhere.
Lessons from the Europarliamentary election and our second year of membership
Operations in 1996 and the Europarliamentary election
in particular provided guidelines for developing the
public information services.
We must keep in mind the fact that information on the
EU must not be forced on people. People will want to
form their own views and opinions. This is why we
must make available a wide range of varied, unbiased
basic information. The desire for information will have
to come from inside each individual if the information is
to be understood and the enquirer get the information
he actually wants.
Inputs must continue to be made into active distribution
of basic information. Feedback from the public clearly
indicates that small-scale field work in the provinces is
efficient and reaches groups of citizens and
municipalities that would otherwise have
poor access to EU information. It is also important to
locate active target groups that are able to forward
information, such as various NGOs and local
committees.
It was also obvious that the network providing
information on the EU covers the country well, although
utilization rates vary a lot from area to area. The
pre-election demand for information was successfully
met. Further inputs into spreading awareness of Europe
Information will still be needed, however.
Before the Europarliamentary election, the political
parties did not provide the regional information offices
with much material on their candidates and were unable
to make use of the regional information offices as
distribution channels. Apparently the parties considered
the EU information service so neutral that they did not
believe it possible for different messages to get across
within this framework of neutrality. Cooperation must
be developed for the next election in June 1999.
There is little public interest in major public events on
the subject of the EU. The election events organized by
the European Parliament Information Office in Finland
are a good example, for only a handful of people
attended, apart from the employees of the parties and
groupings involved. Finns prefer to attend panel
discussions via the television screen.
The amount of information distributed and sought via
the Internet is still only marginal, but the role of the
Internet will gain a lot of ground in the future.
Continuous training for the regional EU information
officers is required in order to guarantee better services
for the public. This is particularly true of information on
EMU.
Closer to the people
A lot has been said about making the EU more
transparent and understandable.
Europe Information has understood from the very
beginning that this is not an easy task. The issues raised
are often so complex and multifaceted that they are not
easily accessible even to people with a good general
education. There is a lot of EU information available
from a number of sources, but efficient utilization of
information provided by the media, for instance, calls
for a good basic knowledge of the EU and a
comprehensive understanding of the interdependencies
involved. Well over three quarters of all Finns today
rate their knowledge of the EU as poor, while in spring
1992 two out of three Finns felt they were extremely
well or fairly well acquainted with issues related to
Finland's EU membership. According to a recent poll,
63% of all Finns want more information.
Has Europe Information then failed to perform its task,
since uncertainty has increased? This is something I find
impossible to believe. Rather, we should try to visualize
what the situation would be like without a functioning national
information service aimed at the general public. The
figures and complaints on the lack of information
services would no doubt be shocking.
For five years now, Europe Information has striven to
distribute information on the EU in an easily
understandable form. Through our regional EU
information officers we have felt ourselves to be
genuinely close to the people. Ordinary people can be
reached best via the provinces when it comes to
answering EU-related questions with a regional
dimension.
The first two years of Finland's EU membership
showed beyond doubt that public information on the
EU must also be provided on a national basis. Efficient
information services must not be left to EU organs
alone, since this would cause national viewpoints and
emphases to be left in a secondary position in the
shadow of general EU interests.
Europe Information was not short-lived, as was feared
at the end of 1994. I feel confident the Government has
made the right decision in continuing public EU
information services in post-accession conditions.
Europe Information has aimed at an active, pluralistic
approach. Every day of the week Finnish citizens can
contact us with any enquiries they may have, possible
or impossible. Our services are not dependent on daily
news items, and we have been able to help beginners
and experts alike. By maintaining an easily accessible
information service that covers all Finland's regions we
have made a contribution towards a better
understanding of what Finland's EU membership
means.