European Parliament - Committee on Institutional Affairs

FOR AN AGENDA 2000 OF EUROPEAN COMMUNICATION

Working document on (non-)communication in the European Union

by Gianfranco Dell'Alba (ARE)

Brussels, 25 August 1997

1.Introduction

If there is one important and urgent issue in the process of European integration on which there is a guilty and embarrassed silence it is undoubtedly that of (non-)communication in the Union. As regards communication between citizens and especially communication in the Community institutions, there exists no serious analysis of the limits of the system chosen by the founding fathers (for a Europe of 6) and its compatibility with a democratic Europe of citizens likely to consist of 25 countries tomorrow. It is without any question this delay in the analysis of and search for new solutions that we must make good. This working document is intended to be a first step in this direction. Many other working documents will of course be needed to tackle the questions raised here and all the others that will undoubtedly emerge in the course of our discussions.

* First question:

Can we reduce the question of (non-)communication to the dilemma of guaranteeing democracy at the cost of an increase that would be difficult to bear in the complications and costs of the present system or guaranteeing a more normal functioning at the expense of democracy, or are there other paths that Parliament and the other institutions of the Union should explore?

* Second question:

Does failure to tackle the problem of communication not perhaps mean promoting the de facto supremacy of one or a number of languages?

* Third question:

What can be done to protect less widely spoken official languages such as regional and minority languages?

The purpose of this working document is thus to try to tackle these questions and go beyond any taboo or false modesty. I have thus tried in the first part to summarize the present situation; in the second part we will compare the different systems of communication adopted by international organizations. In the third part we will try to identify the functions of communication that should be satisfied in a democratic European Union.

2.Various systems of international communication: their advantages, disadvantages and limitations

(a) the 'Swiss' or 'Scandinavian' system

In the system used in Switzerland and by SAS, each person speaks his own language and can understand the language(s) spoken by his interlocutors. It is generally considered that this system is impracticable with more than three languages. It cannot therefore be taken into consideration for the European Union.

(b) the system in force in multinationals

This is the system used by most multinationals. All participants use the same language, usually English. This system has the enormous advantage of doing away with the need for interpretation and translation. It was the system used for instance under Soviet rule, with Russian as the lingua franca.

(c) the UN system

This system, used by the United Nations and most international organizations, involves the use of 6official languages for which simultaneous interpretation and translation are guaranteed even though in practice there are really only two working languages (English and, to a lesser extent, French).

In addition to the communication inequalities that this system involves for all those whose mother-tongue is not one of the 6 official languages (English, French, Russian, Spanish, Arabic and Chinese), there is inequality between the 6 official languages to the extent that one (English) is de facto more 'official' than the others.

(d) the EU system

Under this system all the languages are - at least in theory - equal. Interpretation and translation are provided for all the languages. In fact, as we know all too well, some languages come to the fore as working languages, while others have to resort to a system of interpretation that is increasingly often forced to resort to a lingua franca.

3. The present state of (non-) communication in the institutions of the Union

(a) The costs of the system

The following table shows the cost of interpretation and translation for the main institutions of the Union in 1996 (11 languages).

1996 %

-------------------------------------------

European Parliament 884 (a) 12 (b)

Commission 307 11

Council 105 32

Court of Justice 43 35

Court of Auditors 19 34

ESC (c)

Committee of the Regions 158 (d) 29

(a) in million ECU

(b) this relatively low figure is due to a change in dimension of the EP budget because of major building investments in Brussels and Strasbourg and a new budget lay-out which has markedly reduced the visibility of the budget headings for expenditure on translation and interpretation

(c) Economic and Social Committee

(d) structure common to the ESC and the Committee of the Regions

(b) Disadvantages and limitations of the system

There is no question that the system currently in force upholds the fundamental principle of equality in matters of communication since all citizens have access to official Union documents in their own language. In the institutions all MEPs are able to express themselves in their own language. We must however qualify this general principle since already not only many working meetings but even a number of working meetings (for instance of delegations for relations with third countries) are conducted in one or two languages (generally English and/or French). Here it is important to point out that there is a correlation, confirmed by various studies, between the right to use one's mother-tongue and the frequency of asking for the floor.

Time factor. In reality, although all documents are in fact translated, the time needed to translate them differs from one language to another. Although the development of computer-assisted translation systems will undoubtedly have a positive effect (mainly a saving of time) on the system as it is now conceived, it is difficult to imagine that they will replace or change it significantly.

As for the limits of the present system, we must point out that problems of (booth) interpretation are increasingly frequent at sittings and committee meetings and that because of the many errors of translation Members more and more frequently have to point out differences in the language versions at the time of vote, causing momentary misunderstandings and delays in parliamentary proceedings.

These problems increased following the last enlargement of the Union with the transition from 9 to 11 languages and are likely to increase further - and exponentially - on the occasion of the forthcoming enlargements, and the present system could well be brought to the verge of collapse. The addition of one language is not equivalent to the addition of one unit (from 11 to 12 for instance) but means an increase in the number of language combinations (110 in the case of 11 languages, 132 in the case of 12 languages and so on).If, as seems likely, the Union is to experience a series of enlargements in the forthcoming years which in the medium term will bring it to a total of 25 Member States, it is obvious that the limits of the present system would become insurmountable barriers. The Commission surmises that with the first foreseeable enlargement five languages (Polish, Czech, Hungarian, Estonian and Slovenian) will have to be added to the present 11, adding a new linguistic family, Slavic, to the four that a

lready exist (Romance, German, Greek and Finno-Ugric). We know that six other countries are already applicants (Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Turkey) giving a total of 22 languages. To these countries we must add Albania, Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia which, in the shorter or longer term, are likely to submit their applications for accession, which would bring the total number of languages of the Union to 25 or 26 (since Serbo-Croat no longer exists), and the total number of combinations to600.

Lastly, we should not forget 'regional' and 'minority' languages which, for more than 40 million European citizens, are 'the' mother tongue.

4. Communication requirements in a democratic Union

(a) In the European institutions

The first requirement is equality between the representatives of the citizens (MEPs, Members of the Commission, Council, etc.) as regards communication. This means that all must be able to express themselves in their own language.

(b) Between the institutions of the Union and the citizens

- general communication and information

While it is obvious that the official documents of the Union must remain accessible in the different official languages, other functions and, in particular, rapid access to information concerning all the activities of the Union and the Member States should be guaranteed in a much more effective and general fashion than they are today (Euronews for instance, which provides a certain amount of information, does so only in certain languages).

- protection of all the languages

The system of communication in the Union should guarantee de facto equality between the 11 languages officially recognized today (probably 16 following the next enlargement and a score or more in the medium term) but also protection of and nondiscrimination against all the so-called 'regional' and 'minority' languages (Catalan, Frisian, Basque, Corsican, Breton, Friulian, Gallician, Provençal, Romance, Sardinian, Sorbian, Welsh, etc.) which today represent the mother tongues of some 40 million citizens of the Union.

(c) Between the Union (citizens and institutions) and the rest of the world

With the globalization of trade and the transnationalization of the economy, not only undertakings but also citizens will have to establish relationships with legal or natural persons in third countries and, in particular, with people in emerging Asian countries where the languages used are totally different from those used in Europe. On various occasions the authorities of those countries and inparticular the Asian countries have demonstrated their unwillingness to have English imposed as the international language of communication. Instead they tend more and more - even if still timidly - to favour the adoption of a neutral language of communication for the international community.

5. Possible solutions for the EU

The rapporteur hopes that the Committee on Institutional Affairs will decide to draw up a report that goes into the problems raised here in greater detail, and calls on the Commission - which has already funded studies and projects on the subject, demonstrating that it is not entirely insensitive to the points made here - to examine the proposed solutions previously outlined and any other useful means of intervention.

(a) Communication within the institutions

In the short term it is a case of tackling the question of interpretation and translation, the costs of which will further increase sharply following future enlargements whilst the quality will still remain questionable. In other words we must give consideration amongst the various proposals to the proposal to articulate the systems of interpretation and translation around one lingua franca. There would then be two possibilities: one language of the Union (according to various studies Spanish would be the best) or a neutral language (in this case the fairly obvious choice for historical and linguistic reasons would be Esperanto). Such a system would limit 'dispersion' and permit a considerable reduction in the number of interpreters (two per booth instead of the present three or four, or five or six following any enlargements). As regards translation the lingua franca could also be used as the reference language (legal and semantic in a broad sense).

(b) Communication between citizens of the Union

As part of the experiments already launched, the Commission should be asked to conduct a wide-ranging pilot project of teaching of the neutral language of communication, Esperanto, in elementary and secondary schools in all countries of the Union and in the applicant countries in order to ascertain the propaedeutic (many university studies, including those conducted by the University of Paterborn in Germany have highlighted the propaedeutic qualities of Esperanto) and operational aspects (availability and ability of teachers).