i2010, ICT, and more bullshit language from the Council of the European Union

Some two weeks ago, I discussed the i2010 assessment report on the development of ICT in the European Union, criticising the empty language of the Commission and the encryption of shortcomings through this means.

Now, I saw that the Council of the European Union is working on

"Council conclusions on the future of ICT research, innovation and infrastructures"

which appear to be in the drafting stage as you can see from the PDF document (dated 26 August 2009; previous version from July here) linked above.

Since the revised text mentions a "post i-2010 Strategy for promotion of information society", I dared to take a look at these conclusions, concluding myself that the Council seems to be even worse when it comes to bullshit bingo language.

Example 1:

"HIGHLIGHTS that ICT is one of the main drivers of economic growth and social change and, as such, plays a vital role in the economic recovery, enabling Europe to emerge from the current crisis faster and stronger than before;"

Such statements have no added value at all. They are empty, superficial, useless. They mix the obvious with speculation, but they yield no particular consequence. The only thing they do is distracting the reader from the overall emptiness of the text.

Example 2:

"NOTES that Europe has strong industrial and technology assets in ICT notably in telecommunication equipment and services, embedded ICT and business software and can build on its underpinning strengths including its scientific excellence, the exceptional standard of education of its graduates, world class high-quality infrastructures, and the world's largest ICT market"

If the Council members or the secretariat had read the i2010 report of the Commission, especially the accompanying staff working document (linked here), they would have known that this is as true as it is wrong, mixing the obvious with a bending of the truth that the EU is seriously lagging behind in crucial areas.

Example 3:

"STRESSES that better integration requires closer articulation between European, national and regional actions and implementation in variable configurations at different levels"

Why do you need to stress this in the context of ICT? "Closer articulation" is needed in ALL policy areas of the European Union, one could even say that this is the main goal of the EU. Or, if this is an important point, why not making it stronger:

"STRESSES that overcoming the uncoordinated approach of member states represented in the Council regarding ICT development would be the basic condition for any substantive progress in ICT-related matters"

Example 4:

"INVITES the Member States to amplify their support to ICT research and innovation"

Wow, the member states are "invited". This is diplomatic bullshit language. Why not "URGES", if this is in fact an important issue?

Example 5:

"seek further incentives for the more rapid emergence of innovation-friendly markets, including an extended use of public procurement of innovation, support to pilot projects, and involvement of users at all stages of the innovation cycle"

The only true political statement in this sentence is the encouragement for "public" (!) procurement, and such a proposal is indeed interesting because it would mean that the Council considers public investment in ICT a way to foster its progress - but such an important statement is hidden in a bullshit bingo sentence, including "innovation", "pilot projects", "involvement of users", "innovation cycle", all more or less empty phrases.

Overall, the draft conclusions as they stand today have only limited added value, and the policy consequences that would follow their adoption would not bring about any substantive changes - in fact, the only interesting term in the whole paper is "Green ICT", so far unspecified and thus as empty as the rest of the text.

EU Commission documents and language: A citizen's perspective on the i2010 strategy report [updated]

Let's face it: Many bureaucracies have a problem with language, and the EU Commission is no exception.

But it is still stunning when you read - or try to read - official Commission documents and you can play bullshit bingo with words or phrases that have absolutely no meaning.

Try to read the "Europe’s Digital Competitiveness Report - Main achievements of the i2010 strategy 2005-2009" and, just by reading it, try to find out what has actually happened in the EU over the last years regarding ICT.

Try to understand, what clear goals have been set, which ones were achieved by which means and which are the obvious shortcomings as well as the responsible actors for this shortcoming.

What you get instead are sentences like this one: "The two Roaming Regulations aimed to create a European domestic market for consumers and businesses." But did they achieve anything? The sentence just states a goal, it says nothing about the real impact.

The other "successes" mentioned are "[a] new regulatory body" or the "eYou guide" which is needed to explain EU legislation, which means that it is so complicated no one can understand it. We learn that "[t]he EU is also a potential leader in the future internet", which means everything or nothing.

Or we hear about the incredible news that "[t]he use and the development of ICT are also increasingly embedded in production processes throughout the economy", as if this was the success of the i2010 strategy, although not stated in such a way, and not the simple result of global competition and the general change in technology.

I could continue, but the document is not worth it. This is not a clear analysis of what has been reached, what can be reached, and what will never be reached, but a seek-and-hide game for bureaucrats.

When you take a look at the accompanying Commission staff working document, you enter a different world. The Executive summary is able to say on a little more than two pages more or less the same nothingness as the nine pages of the Commission Communication - but in a language that is readable and understandable.

However, this is just a Commission staff working document, which probably means that it will not be translated, or only later if at all (Commission officials, is this correct?).

In any way, while the Communication might still be noticed by some people, a working document will be noticed by even fewer people, and who will even start to take a look at a document of 112 pages...?!

So what a larger public will not read are clear assessments like this one:

"The search engines, social networks and web mail services that are shaping the Internet are of US origin. The 2008 Scoreboard does not identify any single major EU firm providing Internet related utilities (email, search engines, social networks). Two firms, Google and Yahoo, account for 88% of R&D carried out by Internet companies. Their R&D spending is in line with revenue performance over the relevant period."

In other words: The EU is far away from being a leader in a number of areas, and all the money spent so far has not changed this. The i2010 strategy is a nice facade for some lighthouse projects, but it has no impact on the EU's ICT development that is lagging behind the world leaders.

And we are not only lagging behind, we also hide this in unreadable documents while keeping the readable Executive Summaries for the experts. Congratulations, European Commission!

Update (26 August): I have seen in the Legislative Observatory of the European Parliament that the Commission staff working document has also been transmitted to the Parliament.

Restructuring of the European Parliament secretariat

Klaus Welle, the new Secretary General of the European Parliament, has announced changes to the EP secretariat as well as a closer look to issues of information technology:

"An exchange of views took place with Mr WELLE, the new Secretary General of the EP [...] his first appearance in the BUDG Committee since his appointment, on 15 March 2009. The new Secretary General highlighted the main points of his program for reshuffling the Secretariat General of the EP. The main changes would concern the Personnel DG, which would be divided into three Directorates [until now there are two directorates; JF]. He underlined the importance of a better definition of the Staff Regulations and modernisation of the promotion, mobility and appointment procedures.

Mr WELLE stressed the increasing importance of infrastructures and concluded that a new Directorate was needed. The new Directorate would be given more tasks such as building maintenance. The collapse of the ceiling in Strasbourg revealed the need for staff specialised in maintenance, which is lacking among EP personnel.

Information Technologies was another central element of Mr WELLE's programme as Secretary General. He considered that this central issue of governance had hardly been discussed at a sufficiently high level over the last 10 years."

(Source: Report on the meeting of the European Parliament Committee on Budgets held in Brussels on 27 April 2009, made by the Council Secretariat for the member states)

The role of ICT - or how to produce an irrelevant paper for the EU Council

In the most irrelevant "discussion paper" on ICT ever, the Czech EU Council Presidency - or whatever is left from it - is asking member states for the next Council meeting on 31 March 2009:

• In what ways do you see ICT and broadband promoting growth and competitiveness, especially in order to emerge from the economic crisis? 

• What steps are you taking to encourage the take-up of broadband in your country? 

• What are the aims of national strategies for broadband that you have launched or that are in preparation? 

• In what form should the European policy for information society and the media (post-i2010) incorporate the fight against the crisis and the potential of the ICT?

When you read the paper and then find these questions, you have the feeling that is written by a first year university student who is having an internship in the Council and was allowed to write three pages because the desk officer needed to drink a coffee.

If this is what our ministers have to care about during a Council meeting, then maybe they should just join the desk officer on a coffee!