Brussels, 16/03/2005 (Agence Europe) - The draft directive on services associates audiovisual goods and purely economic products and is in an impasse in the cultural field. Nikolaos Sifunakis (PES, Greece), Chair of the Culture and Education committee at the European Parliament said that this sector should not be covered by this directive. At the end of a hearing on Tuesday, experts were invited to speak and define what “audiovisual services” were in the context of the report by Ruth Hieronimy (EPP-ED, Germany). Wolgang Closs (European Audiovisual Observatory) spoke about the regulatory framework that already existed for most audiovisual goods, such as the Television without Frontiers Directive (TVWF) and the Directive on e-commerce. Closs indicated that there was no “directory” of audiovisual products, who also asked whether it would be dangerous to set up an approach consisting of establishing such a directory, which risked leaving some of them out. Gregory Paulger, Director of DG
Media and Audiovisual Policy at the European Commission said that the specificity of audiovisual services appeared in Article 133 of the Treaty. Evelynne Lentzen (Higher Audiovisual Council of Belgium) raised the problem of the very controversial “country of origin clause”: this clause already exists in the TVWF directive and did not resolve any of the problems, she indicated, explaining that the public criteria the programmes aimed should be highlighted. She said that the Bolkestein directive was positioned between the TVWF directive and would create legal uncertainty. Verena Wiedmann (German TV, ARD) said that the TVWF directive which would soon be revised was adequate. She deplores the fact that Europe was fighting to get cultural exceptions accepted by the WTO while the directive on services adopted an approach that went in the opposite direction. Marie-Hélène Descamps (EPP-ED, France) the rapporteur from France on the Bolkestein directive, wanted to know whether there was going to be a services directive or not; Yvon Thiec (Eurocinema) and stated that “”it should not be applied to all other directives” (reference on the TVWF directive). Pascal Rogard (from the company of authors and theatre composers) gave a clear no to Descamps' question, “I defend cultural diversity at the WTO and at UNESCO. The services directive is a very serious threat” and explained it would mean accepting for the internally what they accepted externally. Ross Biggam (Commercial Television Association) was equivocal: the directive included a lot of downsides to it but commercial TV did not feel directly threatened. Conservative MEPs such as Christopher Beazley beleive that there were excellent reasons for excluding audiovisual services from the directive but attention had to be made about a watered down text containing exceptions. German Green Helga Trüpel raised the issue of content in audiovisual goods, affirming that heritage should be preserved, which should not be undermined by excessive commercialisation. French Socialist Catherine Trautmann asked for vigilance, “If we do not demand enough…the directive could gradually absorb aspects that were considered as exceptions. Henri Weber a French Socialist highlighted the numerous demands for derogations, which he considered in appropriate as it was accepting the principle of the directive, which he was opposed to. Austrian Social Democrat Christa Prets said that they needed a single instrument governing audiovisual services, which already existed with the TVWF directive which facilitated international discussion on respecting cultural values. Doris Pack (EPP-ED, Germany) noted that the TVWF directive was based on old technology and said that they had to take into account of technological change, not only the content for audiovisual goods. Ms Descamps said that the objective was to establish a genuine internal services market, which was a good idea but that at this stage of integration audiovisual services risked hindering action in support of cultural diversity and media plurality, “notably at UNESCO…My draft opinion therefore aims to exclude audiovisual services from the directive, whether they are modes of production, diffusion or transmission”.