European parliament working paper
Download 1.21 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- A. Existing programmes
- B. A Multiannual Programme
- C. Other recommendations
Report RecommendationsMany of the following recommendations have already been made by the Parliament. However, their renewal, all at once and in an overall perspective, would substantially strengthen the Parliament’s position. The context is more favourable: the need for active measures to promote and respect cultural and linguistic diversity is being acknowledged more and more; and the Parliament has increased powers in the EU. In conclusion it seems advisable to propose a three-pronged approach: A. Existing programmesThe following measures are based on the premises that non-official-language communities share some of the needs of mainstream linguistic communities, and could benefit from being included into existing programmes (language-oriented or not). (1) In existing programmes such as Lingua, Leonardo da Vinci and Comenius, the Parliament should call for amendments to remove formal statements of exclusion (other than those strictly justified for internal administrative reasons, referring to EU official languages). (2) Other programmes, particularly entailing IST and HLT, are for large-scale projects, or involve laborious bureaucracy, and in practice exclude projects on smaller languages. (3) In programmes that can or could be used for language-related projects, the admissibility of projects involving languages other than the official languages of the EU should be brought to the explicit notice of prospective drafters of proposals. (4) The Union’s institutions should clarify terminology. The following all appear in the available EU literature in English, sometimes with partly overlapping meanings: lesser taught languages, least taught languages, lesser-used languages, lesser-used European languages, less widely used languages, least widely used languages, and regional or minority languages. The terminology should be fixed in order to clearly distinguish (at least until such a distinction becomes unnecessary, as we hope) between (a) demographically smaller official EU languages (Portuguese, Danish, Greek, etc.) and (b) the autochthonous languages which are not official EU languages (Catalan, Breton, Welsh, etc.). (5) The extension of the mechanisms used to allow Irish (which has the unique status of a treaty language138 without becoming official) and Catalan to be used in occasional plenary sessions of the Parliament, to the other languages spoken indigenously in the European Union, would be a gesture of great symbolic significance, without undue practical problems. The financial repercussions of such a measure would by no means be as wide reaching as its symbolic and political impact. B. A Multiannual Programme(6) We propose, in addition, a Multiannual Programme, based on article 151, to address the specific needs of European minority languages139. Many projects hitherto co-funded under budget line B3-1006 had only limited institutional support (and in some cases, close to none), and would not have received support through other EU programmes. (7) Various articles of the Treaties (149, 150, 151 and 157) have already provided the legal bases for language-linked Actions, some of which have excluded European languages without this exclusion itself having any legal basis; there is no need, either legally or on the basis of projects funded hitherto, for the programme to be classified as a strictly cultural programme. (8) Such a programme, based on the principle of safeguarding and promoting linguistic diversity, should distinguish between certain categories of language communities: a. Communities whose language is an official language of a neighbouring kin-State. The EU should support transfrontier co-operation in fields such as education, training, cultural production, literature, broadcasting, information and communication technology, thus facilitating exchanges and removing the remaining effects of the international boundaries, be they internal or external. b. Communities whose language is not an official language of any kin-State. The EU should support initiatives to meet needs not suitably covered in other programmes. The European dimension is provided by the Union’s support itself, in that European integration is partly responsible for these communities’ new linguistic needs. Added-value projects, which link to other linguistic communities, should receive supplementary assistance. (9) The proportion of EU funding for such projects should be higher than it has been hitherto, without necessarily reaching 100%, as happens in several EU programmes. The Leonardo da Vinci programme140 offers up to 75% funding for e.g. projects to promote language and cultural competences in vocational training141; and up to 100% for actions related to reference material. Many small communities cannot find matching funds, even for small-scale projects. (10) The programme should have a special procedure for coping with small-scale projects, perhaps managed by local, grassroots organisations. Simplified bureaucratic procedures, including perhaps a decentralised programme management structure, would remove another significant barrier to many grassroots initiatives. (11) Action research should be clearly pinpointed in the programme: comparative research should help different communities to share tools, ideas and experience; while local research should be interstitial, helping to identify the community and its language’s needs. (12) The programme should foresee 100% funding for the parts of any co-funded project that specifically promote pan-European exchanges, co-operation and dissemination. C. Other recommendations(13) Both the European Bureau for Lesser-Used Languages and the Mercator research and documentation centres should continue to receive A-line budget funding. The networking they have achieved throughout Europe, which was inconceivable 20 years ago, is an asset, which should be ensured into the future. Support should also be offered to allow frequent exchanges contacts and co-operation between the planning bodies for the various languages involved. (14) Within or without the Programme, the results of the many examples of good practice funded by the EU should be widely disseminated142. A special effort should be made to bring such information onto the web, in a format that fosters contacts and further co-operation at the European level143. The Mercator centres are in a good position to contribute to such a venture. Such a database could include projects funded by a variety of EU programmes. Provision would have to be made for regular updating. (15) The Parliament is encouraged to devote serious attention to other Union initiatives, which unwittingly threaten lesser-used languages. First and foremost, the planned TV convergence directive, which would make public TV channels have to be funded without recourse to advertising revenue. In the case of Welsh, Irish or Catalan, for instance, such a measure is dreaded, for TV channels in these languages have to compete directly for a much smaller market than their competitors’. Any reduction to their revenue would damage the quality of their service, so they might lose part of their audience. In response to a Commission Green Paper144 on this issue, the point was made forcefully by the Welsh channel S4C145 and the Irish-language broadcaster TnaG146. The Corporació Catalana de Ràdio i Televisió (CC-RTV) which runs TV3 and Canal 33 in Catalonia, is also greatly concerned, given that its competitors are private TV channels licensed by central government to operate throughout Spain, who do so almost entirely in Spanish. In short, to guarantee competition, it is not sufficient to look at the competing companies overall. The needs of competing languages also have to be taken into account, and this justifies, in our view, a special treatment for companies addressing their products to smaller (linguistic) markets, nearly all of whose members are however, bilingual. It appears that the Commission, in its Communication of 17 October 2001 on the Financing of Public Service Broadcasting147, has been sensitive to these needs. (16) Finally, the Parliament has drawn attention to the plight of several minority language groups and their cultural leaders. The cases of the (Slavo) Macedonian association and Bletsas are recent examples. It would be worthwhile for the Parliament to devote still more attention to the protection of minority languages in some countries, from a human rights perspective. Though it is beyond the remit of this Report, a final quotation is relevant: ‘One wonders if a distinction might be agreed between internal working languages and languages of service to Europe’s citizens. Internal working languages could be restricted for most but not all purposes to two or three languages. Languages of service should include not only all existing official and working languages but also most of those we now call ‘regional’, ‘minority’ or ‘lesser used’148. When a French minister proposed at the end of 1994 that there be only five working languages the proposal had to be quickly withdrawn149. We believe that the concept of ‘language of service’ could be a big step forward in responding to linguistic diversity in the European Union. Directory: RegData -> etudes -> document travail document travail -> Working paper a single market in financial services RegData -> European commission brussels, XXX RegData -> The european commission RegData -> Provisional agreement resulting from interinstitutional negotiations Download 1.21 Mb. Share with your friends:
|