EU telecoms: Reaping the digital dividend vs costs of non-Europe

The 2987th Council meeting, in the Transport, Telecommunications and Energy (TTE) configuration from 17 to 18 December 2009 (document 17456/09), adopted conclusions on the digital dividend (page 22):

The digital dividend - Council conclusions

The Council adopted conclusions on transforming the digital dividend into social benefits and economic growth (17113/09).

The digital dividend is the result of the switchover from analogue to digital terrestrial television in Europe, which is expected to be finalised by the member states between now and the end of 2012. The purpose of the Council conclusions is to achieve a certain level of technical and political coordination among the member states with a view to harmonised use of the digital dividend.

The conclusions, in particular:

• highlight the fact that radio spectrum is a scarce resource that needs to be used efficiently,

• stress the importance of the digital dividend in helping to provide high-speed broadband services in rural areas,

• invite the member states to contribute to the development of a common EU approach towards spectrum coordination issues with third countries.

Council conclusions in detail




The summary conclusions referred to Council document 17113/09 Commission Communication - transforming the digital dividend into social benefits and economic growth - Adoption of Council conclusions (8 pages), where a background presentation is given with documentary references and the annexed Council conclusions agreed on are laid down in more detail.

The main issue is the more effective future use of the 800 MHz band for electronic communications services,


Commission proposal



The Council prefers to refer to its own document register, so he Commission communication “Transforming the digital dividend into social benefits and economic growth” transmitted to the Council on 30 October 2009 (document 15289/09) can be found through the register.



On the other hand, the same document can be found on the legal portal Eur-Lex, under Preparatory acts, choosing COM documents, then searching by year and number (if you know them exactly) or by year and month (if you know approximately).




Either way, the communication from the Commission: Transforming the digital dividend into social benefits and economic growth; Brussels, 28.10.2009 COM(2009) 586 final (12 pages), goes into much more detail to explain why the member states should act in a coordinated manner to reap the benefits of radio spectrum being freed for more valuable use than analogue terrestrial television broadcasting.


Coordinating action between sovereign member states is hard work even when highly beneficial, so the Commission distinguished clearly between those actions for which considerable support already existed, and which must be taken now to address the immediate policy objectives of economic growth and bridging the digital divide, and to provide clarity to Member States in the vanguard in the switch to digital, and those actions that required further discussion and agreement with the European Parliament and Council (cf. page 6).


One of the urgent measures was to achieve complete switch-off of analogue TV broadcasting by 2012 in the whole European Union. A second short term challenge was to design common principles (a template) regarding the use of the 800 MHz band of radio spectrum, an act of technical harmonisation (page 6 and 7).


Measures requiring long term strategic decisions included:

• Adoption of a common EU position with a view to more effective cross-border coordination with non-EU countries
• Achieving the EU-wide opening of the 790-862 MHz sub-band to electronic communications services
• Applying a minimum level of spectrum efficiency regarding future uses of the digital dividend


The Commission then turned to forward-looking initiatives that could lead to further increases in the potential size and usability of the digital dividend in the long term:

• Promoting collaboration between Member States to share future broadcasting network deployment plans (e.g. migration to MPEG-4 or DVB-T2).
• Requiring that all digital TV receivers sold in the EU after a certain date (to be defined) are ready to operate with a digital transmission compression standard of the new generation such as the H264/MPEG-4 AVC standard.
• Setting a minimum standard for the ability of digital TV receivers to resist interference (immunity to interference).
• Considering wider deployment of Single Frequency Networks (SFNs).
• Supporting research into ‘frequency-agile’ mobile communications systems.
• Ensuring the continuity of wireless microphone and similar applications by identifying future harmonised frequencies.
• Adopting a common position on the potential use of the ‘white spaces’ as a possible digital dividend.



Detailed studies


The fairly short official communication is available in the various official EU languages: here 22, i.e. all but Irish Gaelic.

As often is the case, the Commission’s proposals are accompanied and underpinned by more detailed studies. This time we find two Staff Working Documents:



Impact assessment SEC(2009) 1436 (47 pages), available in English




Executive summary of the impact assessment SEC(2009) 1437, available in 22 EU languages


This a common pattern: Legislative and other important proposals are translated into all official languages, as are summaries of the main findings, directed at officials of national administrations, enterprises of all sizes and the general public.

Lengthier background studies and the like, thought to be of interest to specialists mainly, are often made available only in English, perhaps in the Commission’s other working languages – French and German – as well.



Cost of non-harmonisation



The costs of membership in the European Union and of EU regulation are often denounced in strident tones, especially in Britain. One of the latest examples is a “study” by the anti-integrationist lobby group Open Europe: Top 100 EU regulations to cost UK economy £ 184 billion by 2020 (21 December 2009).

It is hard to find a word about the reasons for and especially the benefits of regulation, or reasoning about the relative merits of national and European level rules to protect life, health, workers, consumers, the environment, and so on.



This may or may not have been the reason for fellow blogger Nosemonkey to write the post Why regulating and legislating at an EU level is almost always a good thing (23 December 2009). Although Nosemonkey missed the possibility to reach Council decisions by qualified majority voting (QMV), his main argument about the benefits of common regulation hold true, and can actually be widened to cover businesses in addition to governments.


Let us take just one detail concerning an area few normal mortals even think about. The Commission’s study contains the following conclusion about the monetary value of the digital dividend:

One of the main conclusions of the Commission study is that the ‘private value’ that could be created if all Member States were to adopt the 790-862 MHz sub-band for electronic communications services under consistent conditions of use would be between at least EUR 17 billion and up to EUR 44 billion in the most optimistic case, depending on the assumed level of demand for different services.

Why is there so little talk about the costs of lacking European level regulation? Why is Open Europe’s propaganda taken at face value by so many?




Ralf Grahn



P.S. Get to know the emerging EU blogosphere Margot Wallström wrote about, conveniently aggregated by multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, our common “village well” for fact, opinion and gossip on European affairs.

Expensive President of the European Council?

Dignitaries are expensive, as we all know. Open Europe quotes the Belgian daily De Netto with regard to the president of the European Council.




Open Europe press summary 19 November 2009: New EU President to cost taxpayers €6 million a year

Belgian daily De Netto reports that, according to a document from the European Council, the new EU President will earn €350,000 a year, taxed at 25 percent, and will have a staff of 22 press officers, assistants and administrators, in addition to 10 security agents. The paper notes that this is double the current salary of the Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy, who is the current frontrunner for the post. It also notes that it is significantly more than US President Barack Obama’s salary, which is around $400,000 a year or €269,000. The total cost of the President and his team will be €6 million a year.

Compare €6m



BBC News: Cost of Royal Family rises £1.5m (29 June 2009):

The total cost to the public of keeping the monarchy increased by £1.5m to £41.5m in the 2008/9 financial year.

-----

The £41m total does not include security provided by the police and Army or the ceremonial duties performed by the Armed Forces.

The cost of Royal travel, which is also paid by the taxpayer, increased by £300,000 from £6.2m to £6.5m.

***

Who elected them?



Ralf Grahn



P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read the Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, and discuss our common European future.

EU Treaty of Lisbon: CFSP financial provisions

Why do the unsettled times between Royal prerogatives and Parliamentary appropriations described in the Diary of Samuel Pepys (1633 – 1703) come to my mind, when I look at the financial provisions for the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and the common security and defence policy (CSDP) of the European Union (EU)?

If nothing more is sought than soothing foreign policy statements, if there is unanimity, the costs are negligible. But since the early days of European Political Cooperation (EPC) the member states have gradually started to think that they could actually have an impact in world affairs, given the means.

The Lisbon Treaty is a step in that direction, with enhanced coordination and more flexible allocation of resources. The governments and the Council remain key players, with only a light touch of democratic scrutiny by the European Parliament concerning both contents and finances.

When the Union budget is used for CFSP ends the European Parliament is only consulted. If the member states use their own resources, the EP can be side-stepped.

***

The intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) deemed it opportune to present its reforms like this (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/31 and 32):

46) Articles 27 A to 27 E, on enhanced cooperation, shall be replaced by Article 10 in accordance with point 22 above.

47) Article 28 shall be amended as follows:

(a) paragraph 1 shall be deleted and the remaining paragraphs shall be renumbered accordingly; throughout the Article the words "budget of the European Communities" shall be replaced by "Union budget";

(b) in paragraph 2, renumbered 1, the words "which the provisions relating to the areas referred to in this Title entail" shall be replaced by "to which the implementation of this Chapter gives rise";

(c) in paragraph 3, renumbered 2, the words "the implementation of those provisions" in the first subparagraph shall be replaced by "the implementation of this Chapter";

(d) the following new paragraph 3 shall be added and paragraph 4 deleted:

"3. The Council shall adopt a decision establishing the specific procedures for guaranteeing rapid access to appropriations in the Union budget for urgent financing of initiatives in the framework of the common foreign and security policy, and in particular for preparatory activities for the tasks referred to in Article 28 A(1) and Article 28 B. It shall act after consulting the European Parliament.

Preparatory activities for the tasks referred to in Article 28 A(1) and Article 28 B which are not charged to the Union budget shall be financed by a start-up fund made up of Member States' contributions.

The Council shall adopt by a qualified majority, on a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, decisions establishing:

(a) the procedures for setting up and financing the start-up fund, in particular the amounts allocated to the fund;

(b) the procedures for administering the start-up fund;

(c) the financial control procedures.

When the task planned in accordance with Article 28 A(1) and Article 28 B cannot be charged to the Union budget, the Council shall authorise the High Representative to use the fund. The High Representative shall report to the Council on the implementation of this remit.".

***

We start our work by going to the existing Article 28 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which we find in the latest consolidated version of the Treaty (OJ 29.12.2006 C 321 E/23):

Article 28

1. Articles 189, 190, 196 to 199, 203, 204, 206 to 209, 213 to 219, 255 and 290 of the
Treaty establishing the European Community shall apply to the provisions relating to the areas
referred to in this title.

2. Administrative expenditure which the provisions relating to the areas referred to in this title
entail for the institutions shall be charged to the budget of the European Communities.

3. Operating expenditure to which the implementation of those provisions gives rise shall also
be charged to the budget of the European Communities, except for such expenditure arising from operations having military or defence implications and cases where the Council acting unanimously decides otherwise.

In cases where expenditure is not charged to the budget of the European Communities, it shall be charged to the Member States in accordance with the gross national product scale, unless the
Council acting unanimously decides otherwise. As for expenditure arising from operations having
military or defence implications, Member States whose representatives in the Council have made a formal declaration under Article 23(1), second subparagraph, shall not be obliged to contribute to the financing thereof.

4. The budgetary procedure laid down in the Treaty establishing the European Community shall
apply to the expenditure charged to the budget of the European Communities.

***

What is Article 28 TEU going to look like, if the Lisbon Treaty enters into force? Merging the existing text with the amendments drafted by the IGC 2007 should lead us to a new, consolidated Article 28 TEU:

Article 28

1. Administrative expenditure to which the implementation of this Chapter gives rise for the institutions shall be charged to the Union budget.

2. Operating expenditure to which the implementation of this Chapter gives rise shall also
be charged to the Union budget, except for such expenditure arising from operations having military or defence implications and cases where the Council acting unanimously decides otherwise.

In cases where expenditure is not charged to the Union budget, it shall be charged to the Member States in accordance with the gross national product scale, unless the Council acting unanimously decides otherwise. As for expenditure arising from operations having military or defence implications, Member States whose representatives in the Council have made a formal declaration under Article 23(1), second subparagraph, shall not be obliged to contribute to the financing thereof.

3. The Council shall adopt a decision establishing the specific procedures for guaranteeing rapid access to appropriations in the Union budget for urgent financing of initiatives in the framework of the common foreign and security policy, and in particular for preparatory activities for the tasks referred to in Article 28 A(1) and Article 28 B. It shall act after consulting the European Parliament.

Preparatory activities for the tasks referred to in Article 28 A(1) and Article 28 B which are not charged to the Union budget shall be financed by a start-up fund made up of Member States' contributions.

The Council shall adopt by a qualified majority, on a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, decisions establishing:

(a) the procedures for setting up and financing the start-up fund, in particular the amounts allocated to the fund;

(b) the procedures for administering the start-up fund;

(c) the financial control procedures.

When the task planned in accordance with Article 28 A(1) and Article 28 B cannot be charged to the Union budget, the Council shall authorise the High Representative to use the fund. The High Representative shall report to the Council on the implementation of this remit.

***

The Convention, led by Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, looked for more flexibility and rapidity by proposing the following Article III-215 of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (OJ 18.7.2003 C 169/70):

SECTION 2

Financial provisions

Article III-215

1. Administrative expenditure which the provisions referred to in this Chapter entail for the institutions shall be charged to the Union budget.

2. Operating expenditure to which the implementation of those provisions gives rise shall also be charged to the Union budget, except for such expenditure arising from operations having military or defence implications and cases where the Council of Ministers decides otherwise.

In cases where expenditure is not charged to the Union's budget it shall be charged to the Member States in accordance with the gross national product scale, unless the Council of Ministers decides otherwise. As for expenditure arising from operations having military or defence implications, Member States whose representatives in the Council of Ministers have made a formal declaration under Article III-201(1), second subparagraph, shall not be obliged to contribute to the financing thereof.

3. The Council of Ministers shall adopt a European decision establishing the specific procedures for guaranteeing rapid access to appropriations in the Union budget for urgent financing of initiatives in the framework of the common foreign and security policy, and in particular for preparatory activities for tasks as referred to in Article I-40(1). It shall act after consulting the European Parliament.

Preparatory activities for tasks as referred to in Article I-40(1) which are not charged to the Union budget shall be financed by a start-up fund made up of Member States' contributions.

The Council of Ministers shall adopt by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs European decisions establishing:

(a) the procedures for setting up and financing the start-up fund, in particular the amounts allocated to the fund and the procedures for reimbursement;

(b) the procedures for administering the start-up fund;

(c) the financial control procedures.

When it is planning a task as referred to in Article I-40(1) which cannot be charged to the Union's budget, the Council of Ministers shall authorise the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs to use the fund. The Union Minister for Foreign Affairs shall report to the Council of Ministers on the implementation of this remit.

***

In the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe the member states took on board the proposal of the Convention with minor changes in Article III-313 (OJ 16.12.2004 C 310/141 and 142):

SECTION 3

FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

Article III-313

1. Administrative expenditure which the implementation of this Chapter entails for the institutions shall be charged to the Union budget.

2. Operating expenditure to which the implementation of this Chapter gives rise shall also be charged to the Union budget, except for such expenditure arising from operations having military or defence implications and cases where the Council decides otherwise.

In cases where expenditure is not charged to the Union budget it shall be charged to the Member States in accordance with the gross national product scale, unless the Council decides otherwise. As for expenditure arising from operations having military or defence implications, Member States whose representatives in the Council have made a formal declaration under Article III-300(1), second subparagraph, shall not be obliged to contribute to the financing thereof.

3. The Council shall adopt a European decision establishing the specific procedures for guaranteeing rapid access to appropriations in the Union budget for urgent financing of initiatives in the framework of the common foreign and security policy, and in particular for preparatory activities for the tasks referred to in Article I-41(1) and Article III-309. It shall act after consulting the European Parliament.

Preparatory activities for the tasks referred to in Article I-41(1) and Article III-309 which are not charged to the Union budget shall be financed by a start-up fund made up of Member States' contributions.

The Council shall adopt by a qualified majority, on a proposal from the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs, European decisions establishing:

(a) the procedures for setting up and financing the start-up fund, in particular the amounts allocated to the fund;

(b) the procedures for administering the start-up fund;

(c) the financial control procedures.

When the task planned in accordance with Article I-41(1) and Article III-309 cannot be charged to the Union budget, the Council shall authorise the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs to use the fund. The Union Minister for Foreign Affairs shall report to the Council on the implementation of this remit.

***

The similarities between the draft Constitutional Treaty, the Constitutional Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty are obvious in this Article.

The financial provisions in Article 28 TEU concern ‘this Chapter’, i.e. the common foreign and security policy (CFSP), including the common security and defence policy (CSDP).

Administrative expenditure is charged to the Union budget.

Non-military operating expenses are charged to the Union budget, if the Council does not unanimously decide otherwise.

Expenditure with military or defence implications is charged to the member states, if the Council does not unanimously decide otherwise. As a rule, a gross national product scale is used for the contributions of the member states, but the Council can unanimously decide otherwise.

The reference to the formal declaration in Article 23(1), second subparagraph, points to the existing TEU. Following the original numbering of the Reform Treaty TEU (as I have done throughout), the corresponding provision is Article 15b(1) TEU, second subparagraph:

“Article 15b(1)

Decisions under this Chapter shall be taken by the European Council and the Council acting unanimously, except where this Chapter provides otherwise. The adoption of legislative acts shall be excluded.

When abstaining in a vote, any member of the Council may qualify its abstention by making a formal declaration under the present subparagraph. In that case, it shall not be obliged to apply the decision, but shall accept that the decision commits the Union. In a spirit of mutual solidarity, the Member State concerned shall refrain from any action likely to conflict with or impede Union action based on that decision and the other Member States shall respect its position. If the members of the Council qualifying their abstention in this way represent at least one third of the Member States comprising at least one third of the population of the Union, the decision shall not be adopted.”

In other words, an abstaining member state makes a formal declaration, lets the other members proceed, but is not bound by the decision with military or defence implications, including the operating expenditure.

Rapid access to CFSP resources is the novelty in the Lisbon Treaty, as proposed by the Convention and incorporated into the Constitutional Treaty, especially preparatory activities for CSDP operations referred to in Article 28a(1) and Article 28b.

The Council decides on the procedures for rapid access to funds from the Union budget for urgent needs. The European Parliament is only consulted.

If the preparatory activities can not be charged to the Union budget, they shall be covered by a start-up fund made up of member states’ contribution. The Council makes the decisions needed by qualified majority, on a proposal from the High Representative. The Council authorises the use of the fund and monitors its use. – There is no mention of scrutiny by the European Parliament.

***

The provisions on the common security and defence policy (CSDP) are next in line.


Ralf Grahn