European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights

European Union Georgia

Civil Society Human Rights Seminar on Media Freedom

Disclaimer

Tbilisi, 10-11 November 2009 The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union.

Final Report
November 2009 Contract n 2009/218350

This seminar was funded by The European Union

This seminar was organized by Cecoforma 1

Disclaimer
The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union.

European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights

European Union Georgia

Civil Society Human Rights Seminar on Media Freedom

Final Report
November 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 4 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................... 7
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF GEORGIA ........................................................................................... 7 TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY, INCLUDING THE EU, AND THE MEDIA ........... 9

BACKGROUND AND GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE SEMINAR ................... 10 OPENING REMARKS .......................................................................................................... 12 SESSION 1: ELECTRONIC MEDIA IN GEORGIA ........................................................ 14
DISCUSSION SESSION OF PANEL I ........................................................................................................... 16

SESSION 2: THE GEORGIAN PUBLIC BROADCASTER ............................................ 18

DISCUSSION SESSION OF PANEL II.......................................................................................................... 20

SESSION 3: THE RIGHT TO ACCESS AND IMPART INFORMATION; MEDIA LEGISLATION AND PRACTICE ...................................................................................... 22
DISCUSSION SESSION OF PANEL III ........................................................................................................ 24

SESSION 4: PROFESSIONALISM AND SELF-REGULATION .................................... 26

DISCUSSION SESSION OF PANEL IV ........................................................................................................ 29

SESSION 5: MEDIA AS BUSINESS ................................................................................... 31

DISCUSSION SESSION OF PANEL V .......................................................................................................... 34

SESSION 6: MEDIA FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY ................................................... 36

DISCUSSION SESSION OF PANEL VI ........................................................................................................ 38

WRAP-UP SESSION ............................................................................................................. 39

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2008, the European Union and Georgia agreed to establish a bi-annual human rights dialogue. The first session of this dialogue took place in Tbilisi on 28 April 2009. The two sides agreed to hold a dedicated civil society human rights seminar ahead of the second round of the human rights dialogue, scheduled to take place in Brussels in December 2009. Both parties agreed that the seminar should be devoted to media freedom and internally displaced persons. As planned, the European Commission organised a two-day civil society seminar on media freedom on November 10-11 in Tbilisi. The seminar was attended by Georgian and European journalists, scholars, human rights activists and other civil society representatives, as well as by representatives of the Georgian government. The seminar was attended by some one hundred and twenty participants, including 68 Georgian journalists and civil society representatives, 23 international experts, 22 representatives of the Georgian Government, and representatives of the diplomatic and donor community. The number of participants which exceeded the original estimates of the organizers and good attendance at all sessions illustrated the interest and importance the Georgian civil society and the Georgian government attached to the seminar. The seminar was divided in six sessions, with two or three key-note speakers on each panel, followed by prepared comments by local and international experts, discussions, and the formulation of recommendations. The sessions addressed issues related to electronic media in Georgia; the Georgian Public Broadcaster; the right to impart and access information; media legislation and practice; professionalism and self-regulation; media as business; and media freedom and democracy. A special feature of the seminar was the comprehensive study of the Georgian media presented by the Eurasia Partnership Foundations Caucasus Research and Resource Centre. The study had been commissioned by the EC for the seminar. The study established that Georgia has a vibrant media scene and liberal media legislation. There is a wide variety of viewpoints available in print and on radio, as well as on television in the capital Tbilisi. However, rather than acting as impartial providers of information, media outlets are often viewed as biased, serving the interests of one or another political group. Two of the most significant features of the Georgian media are the deep polarization of TV broadcasters and the interference of media owners in editorial decisions. The topics selected for the sessions reflected problems concerning the freedom of the press in Georgia as well as those issues most widely-discussed by Georgian society. The agenda topics and all sub-topics were elaborated during several meetings with Georgian key speakers and other stakeholders prior to the seminar. Participants noted that whilst plurality exists, especially in Tbilisi, the Georgian electronic media are highly-politicized and polarized, with stations in pro-government and proopposition camps. Also, despite having access to multiple viewpoints and news items for critical judgement and the subsequent formation of independent opinion, viewers often get contradictory information and are not adequately informed. The participants opined that there was very little editorial independence in newsrooms, and that the selection and treatment of news greatly depended on the viewpoints of media owners; hence the importance of transparency of ownership for viewers, in order to aid them to detect the origins of bias. The

participants noted deficiencies in the existing legislation and practice to guarantee full disclosure of media ownership to the public. In this regard, the work of the Georgian National Communications Commission was discussed at great length. Whilst the GNCC representative provided answers to many questions from the participants on the regulatory practice, it was noted that the licensing process and all other aspects of the GNCCs work and decisionmaking should be more transparent to the public. The GNCC website should carry all information pertaining to broadcast license-holders and other important pieces of information. Foreign experts stressed the importance of maintaining high standards of fact-based, ethical and independent journalism in electronic media; of uniting into professional associations to guard journalists independence; of making public all documentation relating to owners of broadcast licenses; and suggested the GNCC limit its activities to technical aspects of licensing and to establishing regular media monitoring. The seminar participants noted the important role the Georgian Public Broadcaster (GPB) plays in providing high standards of quality journalism. The key issue in Georgian civil society remains the composition and the scope of the responsibilities of the Governing Board of the GPB. Participants noted that the Governing Board should be independent of any political or corporate interests, and that the process of selection should be re-examined and improved. Levan Ramishvili, head of the Liberty Institute, suggested the establishment of a commission that would form a short-list of candidates for Board membership, and that the entire concept of public broadcasting in Georgia needs to be re-examined. As yet another guarantee of the GPBs independence, the seminar participants unanimously recommended changing the current structure of financing of the Georgian Public Broadcaster back to the previous mode of allocating 0.15% of gross national income to the Broadcaster. The CRRC study provided the seminar's participants with very interesting reading by showing that the Georgian Public Broadcaster had moderate ratings and that the public lacked adequate awareness of its mission. Regarding the latter problem, participants suggested making the GPB's mission and action plan more widely-known to the general public and for the GPB to establish mechanisms of public accountability. The Right to Access and Impart Information was another major area of interest to civil society. This right is rooted in legislation, which all participants stressed as positive and liberal, as well as in practice, which many participants viewed as a problem area. Court practice was criticized for lacking application of European case law, and for focusing on procedural matters rather than on conceptual judgment when reviewing freedom of information (FOI) cases. It was noted that legislation needed to be amended and to be provided with additional details for a clearer interpretation. Journalists and media owners from the regions of Georgia criticized the press services of local and central government offices for not cooperating with public information requests. It was noted that legislation should be amended to establish mechanisms for the timely accommodation of public information requests from journalists. Oleg Panfilov, Director of the Centre for Journalism in Extreme Situations, noted that journalists needed legal training and education in order to learn and practice their rights. Regarding the professionalism of media, participants (and particularly the heads of academic programs) stressed the importance of professionalism rooted in continuous training and education. The directors of academic programs complained that it was difficult to run quality academic programs in the absence of charity and donor support for education. They stressed the fact that their schools were important as strongholds of standards and values of quality

journalism, as well as providers of skills at all career levels. In this regard, the need to establish a professional training centre targeting the needs of working professionals was raised. Representatives of regional media complained of limited educational and training opportunities in regions to serve local media. Patrick Leusch of the Deutsche Welle Akademie spoke strongly of the need to educate media owners on the long-term benefits of practicing quality journalism. Participants noted the role of self-regulation in bringing quality to journalism, and stressed the need to learn past lessons in order to establish viable selfregulatory mechanisms. The need for greater solidarity and formal association uniting journalists was stressed. Media as business was perhaps the greatest area of concern. Speakers and participants stressed that only viable businesses can achieve a substantial measure of independence. At the same time, market forces alone could not guarantee the sustained existence of the press. It was noted that the advertising market, like the media sector itself, was politicized, and was greatly affected by the political divide in society. International experts suggested various incentives to improve business opportunities for the press, such as tax breaks and the establishment of a media support fund with fixed allocations from tax revenues. The last session was a conceptual discussion of the role of media in democratic society. Panellists and participants discussed the evolving role of journalism in transitional societies, the level of freedom of the press in Georgia both in global and regional contexts, and the role of institutions such as the Public Defender's office in safeguarding this freedom. It was noted that Georgia was undoubtedly the freest of all Caucasus countries and among the freest countries in the post-Soviet space, but that establishing the level of freedom available to media in Western Europe was a goal Georgia should set itself. At the end of the seminar, participants received printouts of draft recommendations, copied by the moderator from speeches and comments made throughout the conference. The seminar's participants discussed this set of recommendations, made amendments, and approved the draft list for submission to the European Commission.

RECOMMENDATIONS
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF GEORGIA

Regarding the Principle of Transparency, the Government should: Review legislation so as to prevent any direct or indirect monopolistic ownership of the media. No single owner may own shares in other companies through a third party; Introduce changes to the Ministry of Finance's Decree of May 8, 2008, which makes information on owners of commercial entities a secret, and ensure these changes have a retroactive effect going back to May 8, 2008; Ensure that information on the owners of electronic as well as print media is published and that every citizen will have easy access to this information; Review the composition of the Georgian National Communications Commission (GNCC), paying particular interest to potential conflicts of interest so that no political or corporate interest is represented; Limit the Georgian National Communications Commission's activities to the technical aspects of licensing versus content-based aspects; The Georgian National Communications Commission should collect, analyze and publish data about owners of broadcasting and re-broadcasting companies; Lift all unjustified restrictions on the issuance of broadcast licenses; Develop a mechanism to ensure the transparency of the Georgian National Communications Commission's decision-making processes and the accountability of the GNCC itself; and The Georgian National Communications Commission should manage the transition to digital broadcasting in a transparent and publicly-accountable manner, keeping the public informed of the process and ensuring public participation.

Regarding General Legal Provisions: The Government should ensure that the courts take European case law into account when they rule on questions of freedom of and access to information, so that they may focus on the conceptual aspect of cases rather than examining if they meet all procedural requirements; The decision to forbid video and photographic coverage of courts should be reversed; Relevant items of legislation should be amended so as to guarantee better legal protection to journalists' sources and whistleblowers; and Relevant items of legislation should be amended so as to introduce the principle of must carry to govern the distribution of media content.

Regarding Access to Information: The functions of government press services should be clearly defined and thoroughly maintained; All state agencies should create databases which will be accessible to the public in order to ensure transparency;

 The Government should establish mechanisms to ensure the proactive publication of information by state agencies, including the publication of information on their respective websites; The existing practice of journalistic accreditation should be changed, as the current system does not offer journalists equal opportunities; The Georgian Parliament and the Ministry of Finance should grant regional television broadcasters a financial amnesty in order to annul accumulated debts; Electoral legislation should be amended so as to render it non-binding for regional broadcasters with regard to the allocation of free airtime to political candidates during elections; and The Government should create mechanisms for administrative punishment for failing to impart public information or for failing to do so in a timely manner.

Regarding the Georgian Public Broadcaster (GPB): The old scheme for financing the Georgian Public Broadcaster by allocating it 0.15% of GDP should be restored; Detailed regulations governing the work of the Governing Board of the Georgian Public Broadcaster should be established; The transparency of the selection process of members of the Georgian Public Broadcaster's Governing Board should be ensured, and a special commission should be set up which will be responsible for creating a short-list of candidates (this is currently the prerogative of the President of Georgia); The Georgian Public Broadcaster's Governing Board should be comprised of independent representatives of the public; Political parties should abstain from interfering in the formation of the Georgian Public Broadcaster's Governing Board; The Georgian Public Broadcaster's Governing Board should establish clear criteria for the selection of the GPB's general director; The relevant legislation should be amended in order to render information on public servants public, including information on their salaries; The concept of the Georgian Public Broadcaster should be reviewed; The process whereby the public agrees on the goals and functions of the Georgian Public Broadcaster and whereby the public interest is defined should be simplified; and A code and regulations of the Georgian Public Broadcaster should be distributed to the public for the latter to be able to review its programming goals and practices.

Regarding Business and Media: The creation of publishing and distribution infrastructure in Georgia's regions should be supported; Georgian laws on non-profit and non-governmental organizations should be applied to news organizations, so that they may attract grants in order to strengthen their editorial independence; The advertising market should be audited, so that any monopolistic practices (e.g. ownership of both media and advertising companies) shall be revealed; and Measures to educate and train journalists should be supported.

TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY, INCLUDING THE EU, AND THE MEDIA

Regarding Business and Education, the International Community and the Media should: Facilitate media research, including market research, and make this research available to regional media owners; Ensure that media monitoring becomes a strong and ongoing process, both in quantitative and qualitative terms; Make media management training available in the regions; Encourage the media to create mechanisms for auditing circulation; Create mechanisms for monitoring the media; Continue to support educational programs including in the regions so that schools of journalism become sources and providers of journalistic standards and value both for students and for professionals throughout their careers; Support media organizations in establishing new media practices; Make accessible important resources for media education such as books, databases, methodology, research magazines, international networks including for regional programs; Support schools of journalism in the absence of traditional forms of donation (such as charity, private, or corporate donations); Create professional training centres, including in the regions, so that professional journalists can continue training throughout their careers; Create consulting service for media owners; Georgian media should create strong mechanisms for their self-regulation, and a professional union of journalists; and Strengthen the training of journalists to use legal protection mechanisms to the fullest.

BACKGROUND AND GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE SEMINAR

1. Human rights are one of the cornerstones on which the EU-Georgia partnership is based. The EU-Georgia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA), concluded in 1996 and in force since 1999, stipulates that respect for democracy, the principles of international law, human rights and the market economy are the essential elements of EU-Georgia relations. 2. The discussion of issues related to human rights between Georgia and the EU takes place within the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy, which Georgia joined in 2004, and the priorities set by the European Neighbourhood Policy Action Plan adopted on 14 November 2006. 3. In 2008, the European Union and Georgia agreed to establish a bi-annual human rights dialogue. The first session of this dialogue took place in Tbilisi on 28 April 2009. During the dialogue, the two sides discussed among other issues the reform of the judicial system, the enforcement of national human rights legislation, the rights of prisoners, freedom of association and of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of expression and of the media, the protection of IDPs, and the humanitarian situation following the August 2008 war. 4. Both sides also agreed to hold a dedicated civil society human rights seminar in Tbilisi ahead of the second round of the human rights dialogue, scheduled to take place in Brussels in December 2009. Both parties agreed to devote the seminar to media freedom and internally displaced persons. 5. The aim of the civil society seminar is to contribute to the human rights dialogue through open discussions with the civil society to help enriching the official dialogue. The civil society seminar provides an opportunity for discussion between European and Georgian civil society representatives, academics and government officials on human rights topics and on how to enhance the application of human rights. The civil society seminar on human rights is intended to: Allow academic and members of civil society to feed the agenda of the official dialogue with their views through non-confrontational discussions; Enhance the official human rights dialogue by creating a space for the European and Georgian academic and NGO communities to have open and professional discussions at expert level in order to formulate recommendations for future reforms based on best practices and applicable international standards; and Expose academic and civil society representatives to expert analysis of the areas where the use of international human rights standards and EU practices could be further promoted in Georgia.

10

The seminar consisted of two parts: 1. During the first two days of the seminar, a first group of participants and speakers examined issues related to media freedom; and 2. On the third and last day of the seminar, a second group discussed issues related to Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs). The present report summarizes the introductory remarks and ensuing discussions among the participants of the seminar. It also provides recommendations that were elaborated by the civil society participants. Annexes to the report include presentations given by the key speakers, who also presented them in writing to the seminar's organizers. The annexes also include other materials related to the seminar, including its agenda, concept note, and the list of participants.

11

OPENING REMARKS
Day 1. Tuesday November 10, 2009 The Seminar was opened by Moderator Maia Mikashavidze, Dean of the Caucasus School of Journalism and Media Management, Georgian Institute of Public Affairs, who welcomed participants and reiterated the goals of the seminar. Franois Massouli, Political Advisor of the European Commission Delegation to Georgia (acting on behalf of H.E. Per Eklund, Head of Delegation of the European Commission), greeted the participants and wished them a fruitful meeting. He stressed the importance of the Human Rights Dialogue between the EU and Georgia within the framework of the European Neighbourhood policy established in 2006 and of the present forum to foster a dialogue within civil society and enrich the Human Rights Dialogue. He noted positive developments in the Georgian media, as illustrated by the improved ranking in the Reporters Without Borders freedom index. That said, Mr. Massouli stressed that there was room to develop further towards greater freedom of the press. In his welcome address Fredrik Lojdquist, Special Envoy of the Swedish EU Presidency to Georgia, mentioned that EU-Georgia relations are developing rapidly. One of the main ideas of this partnership is to encourage media freedom and the rule of law. He mentioned that governments should create preconditions for the smooth functioning of free media, but that the main responsibility for this work rests with Georgian civil society. Alexander Nalbandov, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Georgia, welcomed the participants and stressed the importance of Georgias liberal media legislation and its law on the Freedom of Speech and Expression. He noted the pluralism that exists in the Georgian media, and the wide representation of political parties on the main television channels. He said that the new parliamentary television channel (which will begin broadcasting in 2010) would strengthen the pluralism of political views in the media. He stressed the fact that the Georgian Government attaches much importance to the recommendations made by the seminar's experts. Ana Karlsreiter, Adviser of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, underlined that two years after the closure of the Imedi television station it was the right time to assess media freedom in Georgia, and that the voice of civil society was crucial in this respect. The freedom of the media had made considerable progress in Georgia since 2003. The country had exemplary media laws, and Georgia was the only state in the South Caucasus which had achieved pluralism in electronic media. She mentioned that, in this regard, granting the right of political and other general programming to one of the Tbilisi-based oppositional channels Maestro was a step forward. She called on the seminar to identify the areas where work had to be done. Dr. Hans Gutbrod, Regional Director of the Caucasus Research and Resource Centre, presented a summary of the main findings of the centre's Comprehensive Media Research in Georgia. This study was carried out in October-November 2009, and included a baseline survey of existing research, a public opinion survey, and focus groups in Tbilisi and Kutaisi as well as media monitoring. He presented the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to Georgian media. According to Dr. Gutbrod, strengths are the high public interest in information on the media and the predominance of television as the preferred medium of information. Television in Georgia determines what people think on current events, and in the

12

capital there is a broad diversity of sources available to viewers. The weaknesses he underlined were the sharp contrast in how the Government and the opposition are covered by national broadcasters, and the very different ways in which news is presented largely positive on national broadcasters and largely negative or neutral on Tbilisi-based channels (Maestro and Kavkasia). Whilst professionals think that the news is influenced by owners, the general public thinks that journalists in Georgia serve the interests of the Government. Opportunities: the internet is an opportunity within 20 years professionals expect it to be dominant; consumers are quality-driven; the appetite for investigative journalism both among the public and the professionals; and the increasing pluralism throughout the country. Finally, the threats this study revealed were the further polarization of the media, and Georgian media's delays in engaging society.

13

SESSION 1: ELECTRONIC MEDIA IN GEORGIA

The first session which focused on Electronic Media in Georgia discussed the availability and the importance of a plurality of views and news in broadcasting; editorial independence; the transparency of ownership and licensing of broadcast media; the distribution of the broadcast content; and, in general, the challenges of regulating the broadcast sector. Key speeches were held by Badri Koplatadze, Assistant Professor at the Georgian Institute of Public Affairs, and Anush Begoyan, Europe Program Officer at Article 19. Comments were made by Kakhi Kurashvili, Head of the Legal Department of the Georgian National Communications Commission; Nerijus Maliukeviius, Executive Director of the Lithuanian Radio and TV Commission; Tamar Kordzaia, lawyer and member of the Georgian Young Lawyers Association; Tamar Karosanidze, Executive Director of Transparency International (Georgia); Manana Aslamazyan, Executive Director of Internews Europe; Natia Kuprashvili, Executive Director of the Georgian Association of Regional Broadcasters; and Dr. Karin Deutsch Karlekar, Coordinator of the Freedom of the Press Index at Freedom House. Badri Koplatadze, Assistant Professor at the Georgian Institute of Public Affairs, stressed the importance of transparency with regard to the ownership of the media and the need to amend relevant legislation in order to prevent monopolistic ownership. He stressed that the relevant Georgian legislation was designed to allow for maximum liberty for businesses, including the right to not disclose the ownership structure. But media business is a business different from others in terms of the level of openness required. Although the absolute independence of media is hardly achievable, in Georgia the problem of independence is aggravated by the absence of editorial independence from owners. He acknowledged that the Georgian media is pluralistic, but media organizations that lean either towards the Government or towards the opposition provide different views, news, and sometimes distorted and contradictory information. For any one person to find out the news of the day it is necessary to watch various channels, which is complicated and confusing. Therefore, there is a clear need for quality journalism to provide a pluralistic picture within one source. Anush Begoyan, Europe Program Officer at Article 19, underlined the need for better implementation of existing media legislation and for promoting transparency and diversity in media ownership, as well as the need for the Georgian National Communications Commission (GNCC) to restrict its role to dealing with technical aspects of broadcasting and issuing general broadcast licenses versus content-based licenses, so that television and radio companies can make their own choices regarding content. Otherwise, the GNCCs powers would be too broad. She noted instances of selective application of licensing rules, and emphasized the importance of adopting active and effective self-regulation mechanisms to achieve higher professional and ethical standards of journalism. Kakhi Kurashvili, Head of the Legal Department of the Georgian National Communications Commission (GNCC), mentioned that Georgian legislation provided for the broad independence of a broadcaster, but also stipulated which persons cannot own broadcasting companies. Mr. Kurashvili mentioned that the right to hold a broadcast license for a company that is registered in offshore zones could be a matter for discussion. He also spoke of the GNCCs elaboration of a strategic plan to switch over to digital broadcasting by 2015 as an important and complex undertaking. The switch to digital broadcasting will remove technical

14

limitations and will facilitate technological neutrality by putting all broadcasters on an equal footing. He asked international experts to address the issue of regulating telephone and internet broadcasting. Nerijus Maliukeviius, Executive Director of the Lithuanian Radio and TV Commission, spoke about his countrys experience in granting licenses and regulating the broadcast sector. Transparency of ownership which is considered to be an important aspect of pluralism in Lithuania is already in place, with the list of owners published on the Commissions website. However, there are different requirements for newspapers and television broadcasters. The registration of ownership for printed media is voluntary, whilst radio and television companies have to inform the Commission of the identity of their owners, and, if and when there is a change of owner, such change is dependent upon being granted permission by the regulatory body. State institutions, political parties, telecoms and banks have no right to be broadcasters in Lithuania. Also, legislation says that the owner of any media must have a registered office in Lithuania, and that no offshore companies may own broadcast media in Lithuania. He stressed the fact that deliberations at the regulatory body level were open to the public. Finally, Mr. Maliukeviius recommended that the data collected on all private owners and companies including their shareholders be made available to the public in an easily-accessible form. Tamar Kordzaia, lawyer and member of the Georgian Young Lawyers Association (GYLA), mentioned that certain particularities of Georgian legislation made information regarding owners and shareholders in businesses even more protected. Licenses are awarded on the basis of very complex procedures, and the process is not transparent. The new Code of Conduct for broadcasters will soon come in force. This Code states the norms of conduct, but does not state whether these norms are compulsory or simply recommendations, which makes their interpretation unclear. Tamar Karosanidze, Executive Director of Transparency International (Georgia), spoke about the study carried out by Transparency International on the ownership of media in Georgia. She said the transparency of ownership was an important criterion in assessing the freedom of the media. She said that the fact that there were 27 independent channels was positive, but that ownership of some of these independent channels in Georgia was questionable. Editorial independence of TV channels was also rather uncertain, as the heads of news services were often former press secretaries in Government offices. She criticized the quality of news on pro-governmental channels, which is often exactly the same news even down to the mistakes. She was also critical of political talk shows, which lacked debates between opposing political actors. She stressed the need to pay attention to the transfer of ownership of TV stations, namely at Imedi TV and Rustavi 2, and recommended carrying out both quantitative and qualitative media monitoring, the latter being the best tool to reveal any bias. Natia Kuprashvili, Executive Director of the Georgian Association of Regional Broadcasters, underlined the importance of supporting regional TV stations in their effort to become financially sustainable. In this regard, she stressed the need to announce a financial amnesty to cover old tax debts of regional stations. She also suggested that electoral legislation, which obliges broadcasters to provide free airtime to different political parties, should be changed.

15

Manana Aslamazyan, Executive Director of Internews Europe, underlined the need for Georgian journalists to consolidate and to form a trade union, and, in general, for the broadcast industry to govern and regulate itself. The industry should form a council and monitor a range of issues e.g. the advertising market and the switch over to digital broadcasting. Regarding the transition to digital broadcasting, Ms. Aslamazyan stressed the importance of this process being transparent and participatory, in order to ensure equal opportunities for all broadcasters. The industry should operate by its own means instead of relying on donations, and the state should stop financing media and should concentrate its support effort on improving media-related infrastructure instead. Karin Deutsch Karlekar, Coordinator of the Freedom of the Press Index at Freedom House, spoke of trends in the global broadcasting scene. She noted that, historically, broadcast media had always been under greater Government control than print media. However, with the growth of digital technologies, Government control weakened and became subtler through selective licensing, high licensing fees, ownership takeovers, etc. She said that media ownership was one of the most difficult but crucial areas to regulate, as TV has a very huge reach in Georgia. She recommended that the appointment process to the Georgian National Communications Commission (GNCC) should be transparent and open, and that the latter organization's composition should be balanced. The GNCCs current powers to grant licenses on content are too broad and should be limited to technical aspects. The decisions of the GNCC should be subject to further review if and when needed. The law should require more information on shareholders or partners in companies that own broadcast licenses. The Government should be advised against overt actions, such as shutting down companies. The Georgian media should take advantage of new technologies, such as satellite communications and the internet.

DISCUSSION SESSION OF PANEL I

The discussion started with questions for Kakhi Kurashvili, Head of the Legal Department of the Georgian National Communications Commission (GNCC), to clarify certain aspects of licensing namely, why broadcast studios that distributed content via cable had to be licensed. The case of Maestro TV was mentioned in this regard. Although the GNCC representative explained the legal provisions pertaining to the licensing of such companies, representatives of broadcast production studios felt the Commission was applying rules selectively. Many participants expressed concern over the lack of transparency of the decision-making process at the Georgian National Communications Commission. The case of two community radio stations which failed to obtain licenses from the Commission was recalled, and the Georgian National Communications Commission was described as lacking accountability to the public by a participant. Another key issue of discussion was the ownership of TV stations. Participants noted that the existing legislation was inadequate in demanding full disclosure of the ownership structure of broadcast companies. Tamar Gurchiani, member of the Georgian Young Lawyers' Association, explained that the information on ownership of broadcast companies is regulated by two laws viz. the Law on Broadcasting and the Law on Entrepreneurship. The decree issued by the Minister of Finance on May 8, 2008 protected the information on owners, partners and shareholders in enterprises from public scrutiny. This decree should be revoked, and information on partners and shareholders in broadcast companies should be made available to the public. Other participants stressed the fact that whilst information on media

16

owners should be public knowledge, the emphasis should be shifted to ensuring editorial independence from the owners. Financial independence was described as being the cornerstone of independence for any media organization. The process of switching over to digital broadcasting was discussed as an important opportunity to liberate and expand the broadcast sector and to allow new players onto the market. As Wojciech Dziomdziora a former member of the Polish National Broadcasting Council explained, digitalization was very important to improve access to information in markets were terrestrial channels were the only available source to the majority of population. Switching to digital broadcasting has the potential to increase the number of channels and to improve broadcast pluralism. The representative of the Georgian National Communications Commission stressed the fact that the regulatory body was calling on broadcast companies to engage actively in the elaboration of the strategic plan for the switch over to digital broadcasting. Merab Merkviladze, Director of the TV 25 channel in Adjara, expressed the commonlyheld concern among regional broadcasters about old debts accrued from taxes assigned by the previous Government. These debts prevented the normal development of regional companies. The broadcasters requested that the current Government announces a financial amnesty and lift the requirements to pay old debts to the tax authorities. Another issue raised by regional broadcasters was the practice by certain cable providers to refuse to carry their programming. The case of Tanamgzavri TV in the town of Telavi was discussed, which a local cable provider refused to carry. Wojciech Dziomdziora recommended that must carry principles, requiring cable operators to carry programming of stations in their respective broadcast zones, be introduced to the Georgian broadcast legislation.

17

SESSION 2: THE GEORGIAN PUBLIC BROADCASTER

The seminar's second session focused on the Georgian Public Broadcaster (GPB). Among issues proposed for discussion were: the Georgian Public Broadcasters efforts to become a truly public media; the GPB's editorial independence, balance and impartiality in covering political and social actors; its diversity of programming, to respond to the needs of its audiences; the transformation of Channel 2 into a political channel; the GPB's Supervisory Board and its independence, challenges and scope; financing of the Georgian Public Broadcaster as guarantor of its independence; its procurement practice; and other operational matters. The session opened with a short presentation given by Dr. Hans Gutbrod, Regional Director of the Caucasus Research and Resource Centre, who spoke about the findings of his Centre's Comprehensive Media Research in Georgia. Key speeches were made by Levan Gakheladze, Chairman of the Georgian Public Broadcaster's Supervisory Board, and Wojciech Dziomdziora, a former member of the Polish National Broadcasting Council. Comments were made by Firdevs Robinson, Editor of the BBC Central Asia & Caucasus Service; Tamar Gurchiani, lawyer and member of the Georgian Young Lawyers' Association; Zviad Koridze, an independent Georgian journalist; and Ivan Godarski, Coordinator of the Media Monitoring Projects at Memo 98 (Slovakia). Dr. Hans Gutbrod, Regional Director of the Caucasus Research and Resource Centre (CRRC), spoke of the results of the CRRC's Comprehensive Media Study in Georgia, which found that 60 percent of Georgians received news on politics and current events from the Georgian Public Broadcaster (GPB) at least several times a week. But the GPB was not the first news station to come to peoples' minds, with only 25 percent saying that they usually turned to the GPB for news and shows related to current events. The GPB was more popular in rural areas, and among people who read newspapers. Levels of trust in the news broadcast on the GPB was not high, with only 26 percent saying that they fully or somewhat trusted the GPB, and 18 percent saying that they fully or somewhat distrusted the GPB. Many people either said that they neither trust nor distrust the GPB (27 percent), or that they did not know (20 percent). Fifty-one percent believed the news coverage reflected the interests of the Government, and 11 percent believed it reflected neither the interest of the Government nor that of the political opposition. Twenty-six percent said they did not know, and 4 percent refused to answer. As for financing, 40 percent correctly identified that the GPB was primarily financed by the Government. Forty-two percent said they did not know what the GPB's main source of funding was, suggesting that the majority of Georgians did not realize that the GPB was primarily financed from public resources. Wojciech Dziomdziora, a former member of the Polish National Broadcasting Council, stressed that the role of a public broadcaster was to guarantee freedom of speech. A public broadcaster must offer a variety of programs information, commentary, culture, sport, &c. Its target group would be society as a whole, but also separate groups in society like minorities, religious groups, &c. A public broadcaster should be based on pluralism, balance of opinion and independence, but also innovation and high quality. During its 20 years of independence, Polish TV came under pressure from two forces: politics, and the market. As a result of political wrangling, the broadcaster is not in the hands of opposition parties. Other pressures come from the market, which has resulted in a high proportion of commercial programming on the broadcaster.

18

The independence of any broadcaster depends on a number of factors. One is undoubtedly its governing board, and good regulations should be in place to ensure the latter's independence. Another factor is a country's political tradition. Also, a financing scheme is an important tool to guarantee independence, as is the proper balance between public and commercial sources of income to avoid commercialization of the broadcaster. In Poland, for instance, there is a high degree of commercialization of public TV, with 70 percent of its income derived from commercial advertising. Levan Gakheladze, Chairman of the Georgian Public Broadcaster's Supervisory Board, outlined the systemic problems facing the Georgian Public Broadcaster notably the lack of political culture and practice of public broadcasting. Neither society nor Government has defined attitudes towards the broadcaster, resulting in four elections in the governing board and three general directors. In early 2008, political parties in Georgia including in the opposition agreed on changes to the GPB, including with regard to the composition of its governing board and to its general director. Mr. Gakheladze described this event as a velvet evasion of the law. Political elites continue to determine the development of the Broadcaster viz. the recent decision to increase the number of the members of the governing board, and, informally, changes to the composition of the governing board, which is illegal. The GPB has to this day still not been able to achieve either financial or political independence. The legislative decision to abolish the scheme of financing whereby the GPB would be guaranteed 0.15 percent of the gross national product had a negative effect upon its independence. With regard to professionalism, Mr. Gakheladze noted that state organizations (the Georgian Public Broadcaster was formerly a state television channel) were difficult to reform and staffed with new professionals. At present, the new leadership plans to implement a number of special projects one of these envisages Channel 2 to broadcast political programming and to allow one hour of free airtime daily to political parties. Firdevs Robinson, Editor of the BBC Central Asia & Caucasus Service, spoke of the BBC as a model of public broadcasting. Apart from being the biggest public broadcaster in the world, the BBC has 75 years of professional experience. The BBCs mission is to provide universal access to quality journalism for every citizen. Ms. Robinson stressed the importance of a public broadcaster having a clearly-defined mission. A public broadcaster serves the public's interests which may actually be different from what the public is interested in and is committed to accuracy, fairness, and impartiality. The responsibility to guard editorial independence lies with the journalists themselves, whose duty is to be independent, unbiased, professional, informed, &c. For a public broadcaster to remain independent, it has to have independent funds, e.g. the BBC being funded by proceeds from license fees. The BBC must set the standard for quality reporting; it therefore provides continuous training to its management and reporters. The BBCs college of journalism provides high-quality journalism training and programs for media literacy. Ms. Robinson recommended that the Georgian Public Broadcaster clearly defines what the public interest consists of, and agrees on its mission, purposes and duties. Tamar Gurchiani, lawyer and member of the Georgian Young Lawyers' Association (GYLA), focused on the several problem areas which exist at the Georgian Public Broadcaster: In her opinion, the organizational and legal structure of the GPB is to be reviewed. Currently, it is a legal entity of public law, as are state institutions, the only difference being that it is allowed to engage in commercial activities. This organizational

19

form is not suitable for its mission, and its legal status must be changed in order for it to become a self-financing organization. The procurement procedures were cumbersome. Transparency and accountability remained a problem. The GYLA has been trying to obtain information on salaries of the top management to no avail. According to Ms. Gurchiani, the functions and the scope of authority of the GPB's Governing Board should be redefined, and the Board should not interfere with the actual broadcasting. Zviad Koridze, an independent Georgian journalist, noted that four years after it was established the challenges facing the Georgian Public Broadcaster have not changed. The political parity principle on which the composition of the Governing Board is based is the problem, and is illegal. Mr. Koridze recommended that the Governing Board and the Public Broadcaster itself be fully depoliticized, and suggested the latter process should become a key topic for the EU-Georgia Human Rights Dialogue. Another recommendation was to restore the previous model of financing, whereby the GPB was attributed 0.15 percent of the country's gross domestic product. Ivan Godarski, Coordinator of the Media Monitoring Projects at Memo 98 (Slovakia), opined that the mandate of public media is not understood by the people and by politicians. It is important to understand that public media is funded by public money, and its role is that of media i.e. to be a critical watchdog of the Government, to provide an alternative to official views, and to educate and entertain. Governments all over the former Soviet Union want to maintain their influence over public media, and, by doing so, they undermine the standing of public media. In Slovakia too, successive governments did not understand the role of public media, and thought it should serve the interests of the Government, whereas one of the most important missions of a public broadcaster is precisely not to serve any particular interest but that of the public.

DISCUSSION SESSION OF PANEL II

The discussion centred on the composition and functions of the Georgian Public Broadcaster's Governing Board. Participants were nearly unanimous in stressing the need to depoliticize the Board and the Broadcaster. Levan Ramishvili, Chairman of the Liberty Institute, suggested the process by which Board members are nominated whereby the President creates a shortlist of candidates for submission to Parliament should be changed, by creating a special commission that would compile the short-list of candidates instead of the President. Shorena Shaverdashvili, owner of Mpublishing, Tskheli Shokoladi and Liberal magazines, and an experienced magazine editor, informed the panel's participants of the current effort to lobby for the de-politicization of the Board and the Broadcaster, and for the inclusion of seven representatives of civil society into the Board. Nino Danelia, Assistant Professor at the Georgian Institute of Public Affairs, criticized the current Board for failing to set programmatic priorities and for the lack of effective financial oversight. Other participants stressed the need to establish clear regulations governing deliberations and decision-making, as well as the need to define the scope of the Board's responsibilities. One participant noted that the Board should not busy itself with routine operational matters. The criteria for the evaluation of the work of the GPB's General Director should also be defined.

20

Participants discussed an appropriate legal and organizational structure for the Georgian Public Broadcaster. There were dissenting opinions regarding the proposition to establish the Broadcaster as a self-financing, self-sufficient organization, as it may lead to its commercialization. Levan Gakheladze, Chairman of the Georgian Public Broadcaster's Supervisory Board, thought that a suitable organizational form for the Georgian Public Broadcaster would be a non-profit organization, but pointed out that Georgian legislation does not yet recognize such entities. Participants agreed that this matter should be a topic for further discussion. Levan Ramishvili, Chairman of the Liberty Institute, proposed to reexamine the entire concept of public broadcasting, so that the Georgian Public Broadcaster avoids duplicating the programming of commercial stations. All participants agreed on the need to restore the old principle of financing the Georgian Public Broadcaster to the amount of 0.15 percent of gross domestic product. Most participants agreed with the recommendation to publish the Code of Conduct of the Georgian Public Broadcaster and to make it available to the public for the latter to assess the application of stated standards of journalism.

21

SESSION 3: THE RIGHT TO ACCESS AND IMPART INFORMATION; MEDIA LEGISLATION AND PRACTICE
The session on the Right to Access and Impart Information examined Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation and practice. Topics discussed were: access to public information for journalists; the independence of courts; and European case law as the basis of court practice. The key issue for the session's participants was access to public information for journalists. Participants representing regional media had the most to say, and were sharply critical of local and central Government press services. It was noted that the relevant legislation should be amended in order to establish additional mechanisms for the timely accommodation of public information requests. Panellists agreed in their assessment of Georgian legislation which, on the whole, was deemed highly-liberal, but lacking sufficient detail for clear interpretation. Court practice was criticized as lacking independence and for not applying European case law pertaining to freedom of information. The courts as lawyer Tamar Kordzaia noted focused on procedural matters rather than important conceptual aspects when discussing cases concerned with the classification of information. International experts reviewed the trends in freedom of information (FOI) legislation and practice around the world. Key-note speakers were Ilia Dohel from the Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media; Tamar Kordzaia, lawyer and member of the Georgian Young Lawyers Association; and Levan Ramishvili, Chair of the Liberty Institute. Comments were made by Oleg Panfilov, Director of the Centre for Journalism in Extreme Situations; Nino Zuriashvili, journalist and founder of investigative studio Monitor; and Ia Mamaladze, Chairperson of the Georgian Regional Media Association. Ilia Dohel, from the Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, presented a survey on access to information by media around the world conducted by the OSCE in 2006/07. Areas studied were: freedom of information (FOI) law; laws on state and commercial secrets; punitive laws for breaching such secrets; and the protection of journalists confidential sources. Although 45 out of 56 member states had FOI laws, there were major problems with their proper application. The OSCE's recommendations were:

To adopt comprehensive freedom of information laws, to respond promptly to requests for information (requests necessarily being simple and affordable), and to apply sanctions for the deliberate withholding of information; To avoid information classification rules spanning unnecessarily-wide areas only data that is directly-related to state security should be classified as secret; 29 states punish non-officials including journalists for breaches of secrecy, with journalists' only defence being to be able to prove that the information was inappropriately classified as secret. (This is not the case in Georgia.) It is critically-important that confidential sources remain protected by law, because only then can investigative journalism exist and the watchdog function of media be realized.

Tamar Kordzaia, lawyer and member of the Georgian Young Lawyers' Association (GYLA), analysed the current situation in Georgia. She said Georgians should be proud of their country's liberal media laws, but that the state restricts media freedom nonetheless. Media freedom is directly connected to the independence of courts. Political will and decisions on freedom of press matters are more important than court decisions, as was the

22

case of Maestro TV: It was the executive branch of Government, not the judiciary, who decided whether a company could broadcast or not. According to European standards, which the Constitution of Georgia is harmonized with, public interest prevails over private interest; this is an important norm. Still, the GYLAs requests for information on rates of pay at the Georgian Public Broadcaster were refused for the reason of breach of information privacy. Ms. Kordzaia recommended that the courts cite European case law when reviewing freedom of information cases. They must consider conceptual matters, and not only matters of procedure. Another restriction of access to information is the journalistic accreditation practices in some Government offices. Such accreditation should not restrict the rights of the press and be used for selective treatment of the media. Levan Ramishvili, who chairs the Liberty Institute, said that there were legal provisions to guarantee a free flow of information in Georgia, and that journalists sources of information are fully-protected. He added that Georgian legislation protects whistleblowers, and that existing legislation allows a journalist the right to refuse an assignment if he or she considers this task as inappropriate or conflicting with his or her personal ethics. When there is a collision between freedom of expression and the protection of personal rights in defamation cases, the burden of responsibility remains with the plaintiff. Oleg Panfilov, Director of the Center for Journalism in Extreme Situations, informed the audience of his organizations work to collect information on the problems journalists face and on violations of media laws. According to him, the situation is rather difficult, and there is a need to find ways to overcome the status quo. Public officials are often better trained and prepared than journalists. Journalists should realize that it is their legal responsibility to stand up against attempts to restrict the flow of information. Trainings and seminars cannot help in overcoming the problems the only way out is to prepare the new generation of journalists and teach them to use existing legislation to its fullest extent. Georgia differs from other postSoviet countries by its favourable legislation. Mr. Panfilov concluded by stressing the need to create new schools of journalism where students will be taught relevant legislation. Nino Zuriashvili, journalist and founder of the Monitor studio, said that the most closed government agencies in Georgia were the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Tbilisi Municipality, and the Chamber of Control. She added that journalists could not obtain information on the audit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs by the Chamber of Control, nor could they obtain information on all commercial limited liability companies established by the Ministry of Interior. This information was classified. Ms. Zuriashvili thought that these government agencies should create a code listing the types of information that are classified, and the types that are accessible, so that journalists know what to expect and whom to obtain information from. Government offices should try to disseminate information for which there is strong public interest in a pro-active manner, and this should be required by the law. In the overwhelming majority of cases, information requests are granted after the expiry of the 10-day period stipulated by the law, creating problems for news journalists. To solve this problem, the government agencies should try to

23

post as much information as possible on their websites and in open databases to enable journalists to obtain information instantaneously. Ia Mamaladze, Chairperson of the Georgian Regional Media Association, underlined the fact that access to information was even more restricted in the regions with information on local budgets being particularly difficult to obtain. She said local press offices were very unprofessional, and were in the habit of referring all requests from the press to their central offices in Tbilisi. One local newspaper tried to obtain a police charter from one of the local police departments, only to be referred to the press service of the Ministry of the Interior in Tbilisi. With budgets and so many other important decisions for the regions being decided in Tbilisi, the local press needs easy access to the ministries and other central government agencies. Whilst this access is easier for the Tbilisi-based press, regional journalists were rarely able to obtain information from the central government bodies. Ms. Mamaladze said that local offices started charging fees (0.05 GEL, approx. 0.03 USD) for each printed page of public information, and that these fees were a financial burden for the local press. She wondered why government offices should charge money for disclosing information to the press when there are so many sheets of paper and so many photocopiers in their buildings. Ms. Mamaladzes recommendation was to find ways in which to support the local press and urge local government bodies to publish public announcements in easily- accessible places and in an easily-accessible manner.

DISCUSSION SESSION OF PANEL III

Participants unanimously stressed the need for improving the websites of state agencies, so that journalists would have easy access to information via the internet instead of having to request each and every piece of information from these agencies' press services. The Ministry of Justice was named by a participant as open and accessible to journalists. A participant from the Georgian region of Shida Kartli stressed the need to open-up information on donor support to internally displaced persons and on post-conflict restoration initiatives in the region. Participants requested that the press should once more be allowed to attend court proceedings, and that all restrictions of video, audio and photographic coverage of court sessions be lifted. Regional journalists and editors complained of the difficulty of obtaining information from local police stations and courts of justice, and that all local press offices treated the central press more favourably than the regional press. Regional journalists complained that local press services almost always waited ten days the time allowed to process the most complicated and time-consuming requests before letting the requested information out. Sometimes, press offices waited only to reply that the information request was not stated clearly enough.

24

The protection of journalists' sources and whistleblowers was discussed by Tamar Gurchiani, a lawyer and member of the Georgian Young Lawyers' Association, who argued for additional detail in the law to deal with this very complex issue. One participant summed up the situation in the press by saying that there were positive laws but that their application was unsatisfactory. In his opinion, the ownership of the press was a means with which to tame the press, as was the Georgian National Communications Commission (which, in this participants opinion, restricted entry into the market for new broadcasters) and community radio stations. He said that the owners of large TV companies spent more money than they earned, and that in doing so they upset the market both for other TV stations and for the print press. Small opposition TV stations were reduced to the role of sparring partners for the dominant channels. He recommended the opening of a wide front of journalists united in professional unions to fight against restrictions of the freedom of the press. He urged international donors to start an independent and strong TV station, which would act as an icebreaker for news. Donors should also refrain from pressing selfsustainability with small broadcasters in an environment in which subsidized TV stations did not respect market rules. In his opinion, large TV channels should be the subject of a separate set of regulations, and, for example, should be required to have public boards. H.E. Jon Ramberg, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Kingdom of Norway in the Republics of Azerbaijan and Georgia, said that he appreciated the frank exchange of views which took place during the seminar, and expressed his hope that the seminar's recommendations would facilitate the solution of problems facing journalists.

25

Day 2, Wednesday, 11 November 2009

SESSION 4: PROFESSIONALISM AND SELF-REGULATION

The session on Professionalism and Self-regulation proposed the following sub-topics for discussion: professionalism as the right and responsibility of journalists; teaching European standards of journalism; the Georgian Charter of Journalistic Ethics and the Broadcasters' Code of Ethics; press councils and the benefits of self-regulation; and labour legislation and contractual arrangements available to journalists and professional unions. This session opened the second day of the seminar. The discussion first centred on the role of journalism as a watchdog rather than the promulgator of majority opinions and policies, and on the need to persuade media owners of the merits and long-term benefits of quality journalism, for them to improve journalists' education and training opportunities. The second major area of interest was the current effort and past experience to establish viable mechanisms of self-regulation. Key speeches were made by Benot Califano, Director of the Graduate School of Journalism at ESJ-Montpellier; Lia Chakhunashvili, Dean of the Caucasus School of Media at Caucasus University; and Ia Antadze, journalist for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Director of the Civil Development Institute. Comments were made by Ivane Makharadze of the Georgian National Communications Commission; Dr. Gigi Tevzadze, Rector of the Ilia Chavchavadze University; Ognian Zlatev, Director of the Centre for Media Development in Bulgaria; and Patrick Leusch, Head of the Project Development Division of the Deutsche Welle Akademie. Benot Califano, Director of the Graduate School of Journalism at ESJ-Montpellier, repeated that there could be no freedom without freedom of the press, and that any democratic society could be recognized by the degree of freedom its press enjoyed. However, to reduce democracy to the notion of freedom was a mistake, since democracy also required free elections and public debate to contribute to social cohesion. According to him, a journalist should not be satisfied with the role of a megaphone, but should inform citizens in a rational way. The responsibility of a journalist in a democratic society was to be professional, as was stated in the 1971 Munich Charter adopted by the majority of trade unions of journalists in Europe. Journalists were not to be perceived as a counter-power but as an associated power. Even in old democracies, it was not simple to struggle against political and economic power. Marginalization weakens the independence of a journalist. New industrial evolution prompts the rethinking of old practices. We are made to produce information. When truth and lies are mixed together, the journalist cannot check and classify information, separate the essential from the chaff. We have to affirm our democratic mission. The schools of journalism were to become strongholds of values and reference points for students and graduates searching for standards of quality journalism. Training had become an absolute necessity, since modern media were too complex to be learned on the job. Professionalism and know-how and the ethics of journalism should be taught by professionals.

26

Lia Chakhunashvili, Dean of the Caucasus School of Media at Caucasus University, designed her speech around the central question of a gap between improvements in teaching journalism in Georgia and the low level of demand for ethical and professional journalism in the media. She said that those who taught journalism were developing new approaches, cooperating with media professionals, engaging in research, training good graduates, but that this was not the end goal in itself. The goal of journalism programs was to strengthen the media in Georgia and for the media to strengthen democracy and good governance. She asked to what extent improved education had contributed towards those goals. Where did graduates go after they had completed their studies? They found themselves in an environment where professionalism and ethical behaviour are in low demand. Whilst some media such as small opposition channels could not hire good professionals, others such as central TV channels would not hire them. Graduates had to go to islands of quality in the local media and freelance for international media. One could see them everywhere except working for major TV stations. In Ms. Chakhunashvilis opinion, professionalism was demanded only by free markets, not subsidized and controlled markets. Restoring competition to the rules and demands of the market would produce the need for professional and ethical journalists. She nonetheless urged international organizations to continue to support schools of journalism in which young journalists could acquire not only skills but also strong sets of values. Donor support was crucial, as schools were as poor as any independent media organization. Books, teacher training including at doctoral level and contacts with western schools were needed. Ia Antadze, journalist for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Director of the Civil Development Institute, shared her experience with the Georgian Charter of Journalism Ethics. She said that the Charter was close to being signed by representatives of the regional media organizations, and it would become an important self-regulatory mechanism. She spoke of the history of self-regulation in Georgia, where in 2001 the text for the code of ethics was created but would not be supported by the media; in 2002, the standards of journalistic work were created whereupon the media council was created, but the council did not work. How is the current experience different? Firstly, (i) the text which consisted of 11 paragraphs is developed by journalists themselves. Earlier, journalists had established seven principles for covering elections, principles upon which the text of the Charter was based. Secondly, (ii) the text is signed by individuals, not organizations. Thirdly, (iii) elections for the members of the board ware to be held amongst the signatories. And, finally, (iv) the governing board will consist of nine members, of which three will represent Tbilisi media, three will be selected from among regional editors, and three from among regional journalists. An association of the Charter's signatories will be created. The board will discuss only complaints related to the work of signatory journalists. The Charter should become the mechanism by which society's trust in journalists will be strengthened. Gigi Tevzadze, Rector of the Ilia Chavchavadze University, said that he unfortunately disagreed with the claim that the teaching of journalism in Georgia has improved, with the exception of a few programs such as the Georgian Institute of Public Affairs' journalism program. The attitude to journalism has changed, and a journalist is no longer a simple seeker of the truth, but rather the instrument through which to spread a dominant opinion. Selfregulation and the current Charter have the same problems and enemies as earlier efforts to

27

establish codes regulating ethics. This could be called a common problem of society that no journalist wants to admit a mistake. The idea of journalistic autonomy is seen as isolationism. Journalism programs should pay special attention to the challenges caused by new media technologies. Another recommendation would be to research unwritten but real standards of journalism and inform journalism educational programs. Such a study would be useful for both students and teachers of journalism. Ognian Zlatev, Director of the Centre for Media Development in Bulgaria, recalled the removal of the Berlin Wall as the beginning of a new era in journalism. The democratization process in Eastern Europe was followed by the emergence of a new kind of journalism. Eastern Europe went from one extreme to another, from full government control over media to a complete absence of control, which brought about decreasing levels of professionalism and a consequent increase in inexperience. As a result, the media lost the public's trust, this loss leading to new efforts to restore professionalism over the past fifteen years. Bulgaria is proud of its media self-regulation mechanism. There are commonalities with the self-regulatory mechanisms of various European states, but also strong local characteristics. Self-regulation in Europe implies 28 press-councils with 28 different attitudes. There is no universal model, but common sense and local tradition should govern the process. Bulgarian media succeeded in adopting self-regulation after seven attempts to draft a Charter. The Bulgarian Code of Ethics is signed by about 70% of journalists, and a Press Council supervises the self-regulatory framework. Three types of stakeholder are represented in the Council viz. journalists, media owners and the public. There are many examples of press councils where the council's chairperson is a representative of the courts or is appointed by the authorities, but these are not good examples. There are countries where there is no press council at all, but this does not necessarily mean that the latter countries are not democracies. They simply have other ways of implementing media self-regulation. The International Community supports the self-regulation of media in many countries of South-Eastern Europe, but this is not the case in Bulgaria. Media self-regulation is not a goal in itself, but a lengthy process. There is currently a wide-ranging debate over whether social media should also be self-regulated. Self-regulation is important for two main reasons: to provide better information to the public, and to decrease the number of journalists taken to court. Ivane Makharadze, representative of the Georgian National Communications Commission, spoke of the Broadcasters Code of Conduct that was binding under the Law on Broadcasting. The purpose of the Code was for broadcasters to provide fair and accurate information, to be independent in editorial decisions, to care for the interests of different social groups, to protect young people from negative influences, &c. An important part of the Code was the procedure for reviewing complaints. National broadcasters had to put the system in place within 6 months, the rest of stations being granted a year to do the same. Self-regulation mechanisms have already been created by the Imedi and Rustavi2 television channels.

28

Patrick Leusch, Head of the Project Development Division of the Deutsche Welle Akademie, spoke of the experience of Deutsche Welle in providing training and consultancy services to journalists, media organizations, and regulatory bodies. This experience showed that the majority of journalists were educated through hands-on training on the job, which was the main avenue to professionalism. Mr. Leusch spoke of the gap between university education and the job market demand in journalism. To be a journalist implies sensibility towards what one is doing. Quality journalism should be introduced to the market, otherwise there would be no reason for journalists to be ethical and no charter, or education, could change that. In Mr. Leuschs words, the quality of journalism depended upon three factors: 1. Personal skills; 2. A management decision to produce quality work; 3. A culture of quality in media organizations and staff who can produce work that matches these demands for quality. Media owners and media managers should understand why quality journalism matters, and how it will bring them benefits primarily, the public's trust in the long run. When they understand that quality matters, managers will be ready to invest time and effort in this quality and to try to make sure that their staff also respects journalistic standards. Having self-regulation is not a solution. The solution is to get the media outlets into this culture of quality. Self-regulation is effective only when there is a list of values which are applicable to the given environment only then can these values work. The concern that media owners do not promote individuals who have had training is founded upon the following: if the manager of the media is not committed to quality and ethics, he will not promote someone who has been specifically-trained to practice such values. Mr. Leusch recommended strengthened institutions that provide training and consultancy to media professionals as a follow-up to their journalistic education. He said it was important to reach people who had left university a long time ago and had had doubtful experiences i.e. people who were no longer sure of their roles and values. He also recommended to work with media managers to try to bring the culture of quality into the media.

DISCUSSION SESSION OF PANEL IV

Participants discussed the Georgian Charter of Journalism Ethics and the Broadcasters Code of Conduct. In their opinion, the Broadcasters Code was problematic because unlike the Charter, which was elaborated by journalists themselves the Code was written without the active participation of journalists. In addition, the Code contained principles, rules and recommendations (i.e. guidelines), but it was unclear whether these principles were simply being recommended or whether they were mandatory. If these principles were mandatory, then the Georgian National Communications Commission would have to produce rulings on the proper implementation of those norms, and its current powers would be vastly expanded. In general, self-regulation mechanisms would not work until fair competition was restored to the media market. Subsidized and non-subsidized broadcasters were not on equal terms. Participants dwelt on current needs for education and training, and stressed that journalism programs were in need of improvement. There were no good educational programs in the regions, and this presented regional media with the problem of finding good graduates. For further education, participants asked for journalism books in Georgian.

29

Journalistic training's greatest needs, participants thought, were for management practices and new technologies. The situation whereby the overwhelming majority of regional media employed no trained media managers contributed to their inability to sell advertising space and attract funding. One participant even proposed to carry out research into regional media and the challenges they face. Lack of professionalism was one of the main problems in the Georgian media. Training was and still is very much needed. Some participants objected to the idea that media owners were not interested in quality, but thought journalists too were to blame for neglecting standards.

30

SESSION 5: MEDIA AS BUSINESS

The fifth session Media as Business opened with the third presentation of findings of the media research conducted by the Caucasus Research and Resource Centre (CRRC). Speakers and participants discussed key elements of sustainability in the media business. Among the issues discussed during the session were distribution and other elements of sustainability; business development perspectives for traditional press; the development of new media in Georgia; and the challenges facing regional media. Key-note speakers were Shorena Shaverdashvili, owner of Mpublishing, Tskheli Shokoladi and Liberal magazines, and an experienced magazine editor; Oleg Khomenok, Print Media Advisor at the Internews Network; and Giga Paichadze, blogger and Project Manager at the New Media Institute. Comments were made by Ramaz Samkharadze, Director of Radio Hereti and of the Regional Radio Network, Sarmite Elerte, former Editor-in-chief of Diena, one of Latvia's main newspapers; and Abdullah Bozkurt, Columnist at Todays Zaman, an English-language publication in Turkey. Shorena Shaverdashvili, owner of Mpublishing, Tskheli Shokoladi and Liberal magazines, and an experienced magazine editor, spoke of the unfair distribution of advertising contracts on the market. She thought the problem was that the decisions to buy advertising with certain media depended on the safety of their content i.e. their political acceptability. In other words, the advertising market was not governed by free market forces, but by political interference. She saw advertising as another soft means of taming critical media. Ms. Shaverdashvili gave the example of nine of her regular advertising partners who refused to print ads in her new political magazine, Liberali. In her own words, one could be a good manager, hire good people, establish good practices, produce quality content but it would not translate into advertising income. Aspiring to be independent may cost a manager advertising revenues, which constitute up to 90 percent of magazines incomes. National TV stations have the biggest share of the total market between 35 to 50 million dollars. They are strong competitors to printed media, as they set their prices very low and cover the entire country. Ms. Shaverdashvili thought that billboards, too, were owned monopolistically, and that there is no transparency of ownership in the advertising industry either. Ms. Shaverdashvili recommended that a commission be set up to investigate the media sector and the advertising industry. A study or an audit would also be helpful, according to her. In terms of the business environment, Dr. Hans Gutbrod, Regional Director of the Caucasus Research and Resource Centre (CRRC), emphasized that extensive data is available to help media make good business decisions. His presentation focused on showing the diversity of data that is available. The internet will clearly influence the media environment, with 19 percent saying that they have access to the internet. When browsing the internet, social networking sites are most popular (59 percent), followed by email programs (36 percent), and listening to music and watching films (34 percent). Of those who do not have internet access at home, 36 percent say that the main reason for this is that internet access is too expensive. 20 percent say that the problem is that they do not have access in their area. Only 7 percent say they do not want to use it. Whilst cost is the main reason for not having access to the internet, 49 percent also say that they do not know how much such access costs in their area.

31

(Details on how many different groups would be willing to pay for internet access are also available.) According to Dr. Gutbrod, a significant but little-discussed challenge is that free download sites (ranked among the top ten sites in Georgia) may get the public to form the expectation that internet content is or always should be free. This expectation is a very significant risk to the media business in Georgia, which needs to convince the public to pay for quality content. Intellectual property concerns, currently not seen an important issue, will soon become relevant. Whilst newspapers have a limited circulation, this is not only a matter of cost. Only 21 percent of those interviewed said that they do not read newspapers because they are too expensive. 23 percent said that they are currently not interested in reading newspapers, and 22 percent that newspapers are simply not available in their area implying that there are some potential customers that could still be won over. Again, the prices that different groups would be willing to pay are also available. As for television, consumers clearly say that they want quality coverage, delivered professionally. This seems important to attracting and retaining viewers. However, television is used in different ways by different groups. When switching on their television, the majority of men (65 percent) actually watch, whilst the majority of women (59 percent) use it as a kind of radio, turning on their set while engaging in other tasks. Current TV advertising does not seem to be popular, with almost 80 percent saying that they usually switch channels when faced with a lengthy batch of advertisements. Dr. Gutbrod's presentation emphasized that these are only some data points, and that much more targeted data can be made available if media professionals are interested in finding out what exactly the audience wants. Oleg Khomenok, Print Media Advisor at the Internews Network, spoke of the challenges facing traditional printed press and his experience with regional media in Georgia. In his opinion, people in the post-Soviet world invested money in media with the aim of obtaining political power and earning money. The unbusiness-like mindset of most publishers, who came from the ranks of journalists, was also a problem. In Mr. Khomenok's opinion, the shortage of market measurements such as audience research presents a problem. There is a weak understanding of the audience's needs or of the needs of advertisers and sponsors, with media owners mistakenly believing that their own interests coincide with those of the public. Mr. Khomenok also wondered why people would buy newspapers that do not reflect their interests when watching television is free. Distribution is another problem. Even if one has a good product, the lack of adequate distribution facilities can ruin one's business. Ukraine has developed alternative systems of distribution, and developing new distribution systems in Georgia would increase the circulation of newspapers, copy sales and advertising revenues. In general, the level of preparedness of local managers in Georgia is unsatisfactory. Trainings in human resources management, marketing, advertising, business management and convergence are sorely needed.

32

Mr. Khomenok noted the concentration of advertising money in the capital and the lack of effort on the part of local managers to attract that money through representatives in the capital. At the same time, he recognized the strong ability of local authorities to control the flow of advertising. He stressed the need for local managers to unite in a strong publishers association, since people united both as a way of acting against a common threat and for common benefit. The threats discussed earlier merit strong actions on the part of a publishers association. Mr. Khomenok spoke of two powerful associations of press publishers in Ukraine viz. the Ukrainian Association of Publishers and the Independent Association of Regional Publishers. Both associations were providing valuable assistance in the form of legal consultancy, training, market research and lobbying for members' interests. As people want to obtain news immediately and on different platforms (computers, mobile telephones, &c.), this will be the sphere the internet and mobile media that will develop very soon, particularly given the fact that most of Georgia's population own a mobile telephone. Mr. Khomenoks recommendations were: to make the advertising market more transparent; to support marketing research and to make it available to local media, combined with training on how to use this research for marketing decisions; to develop alternative distribution systems; to support the development of management and marketing skills through training and educational programs; to teach convergence; and to support initiatives to unite publishers into associations. Giga Paichadze, blogger and Project Manager at the New Media Institute, stressed the fact that new media has not fully developed in Georgia yet. Since new media is making its first steps in Georgia, there are excellent opportunities for development through training and familiarization with international experience. In Mr. Paichadzes words, the development of new media technologies poses new requirements to journalism. Ramaz Samkharadze, Director of Radio Hereti and of the Regional Radio Network, expressed his hope that the problems and recommendations discussed during the seminar would reach the appropriate people. As for the factors which hamper the development of regional media, there are many. The regional media still needed the support of the International Community and donors, as regional journalists had to overcome more obstacles than their colleagues employed by the central media. An honest journalist would face many problems in the regions of Georgia. Representatives of official structures would approach publishers offering different benefits if they met their demands. Refusal meant running the risk of getting into trouble with the authorities, financial problems, unjustified fines, &c. In conclusion, Mr. Samkharadze spoke of a network of regional radios that exchange programming and operate a joint website. Sarmite Elerte, former Editor-in-chief of Diena, one of Latvia's main newspapers, said that traditional media are losing revenue and audiences. The borders between various types of media are disappearing all of them are on the internet. Media engage in cooperation and partnership, and the media landscape is diverse and lively, but a diverse media landscape does not by itself create a sustainable model for editorial independence. Revenues and market forces are very important, but the public cannot solely rely on them. New solutions ought to be found. Independent journalism should be considered a public good, and therefore should not rely only on market forces to survive. It does not matter which platform will survive, since the importance is in the substance and not in the form.

33

Journalism is not just a business. It cannot be imported, and therefore it must emerge in Georgia. It is the duty of civil society and of the Government to make sure that independent, quality journalism exists. The Georgian Government already has a tool the Georgian Public Broadcaster (GPB) which should set the standard in terms of quality journalism. The Georgian Public Broadcaster, in cooperation with schools of journalism, should become an incubator of young journalists. The GPB's managers must have the right motivation and the Government must make sure that the GPB is well-protected from political influences. The GPB's Governing Board should consist solely of independent representatives of civil society. Having the same media laws as advanced democracies is not enough. Editors and journalists must feel secure and protected by long-term employment contracts. The Georgian law on non-governmental organizations should be applied to independent newsrooms, so that they may earn money but also receive donations. Georgia can establish a media support fund of dedicated tax revenues, along the lines of thought of a study by Harvards Lehman Program of Journalism in the United States. Abdullah Bozkurt, Columnist at Todays Zaman, an English-language publication in Turkey, thanked the seminar's organizers for the opportunity to learn about the media in Georgia. He found their problems similar to those facing media in Turkey, particularly the absence of trade unions and transparency, and the unclear lines of division between owners and editors (with owners often behaving like editors). A unique problem in Turkey's case, in Mr. Bozkurt's opinion, was Turkey's very powerful and influential military. Todays Zaman, which is very popular with readers, has no accreditation to attend military briefings. But loyalty to readers will finally pay off, and media should therefore be loyal neither to powers nor to business, but to the public. Business-wise, providing credible information also pays, but the internet is a challenge for the traditional press. Regardless, Todays Zaman is freely-available on the internet. There are attempts to sell advertising space on the newspaper's website, but the income generated is very small, and the newspaper's owners are concentrating on the print edition.

DISCUSSION SESSION OF PANEL V

Participants spoke of the distribution systems and other infrastructure that were essential to the sustainable development of the media. Regional media representatives complained that all the printers were located in Tbilisi, and that regional newspapers were published there. They recalled the East-West highway blockage during the August war and how it stopped deliveries of newspapers to western Georgia. They recommended that printers be established in the regions to serve local media needs. In addition, there was a strong need for alternative distribution systems, different from those currently in use. Participants agreed with one of the speakers, who stressed the importance of marketing research to inform decisions of media owners. At the same time, some participants expressed doubts over the credibility of certain research firms on the Georgian market. Participants unanimously stressed the need to train traditional media in new technologies, but also mentioned the 10 percent penetration of the internet and the need to improve outreach to the rest of the population.

34

Gia Khasia, the owner of Radio Atinati, spoke of the need to find appropriate legal forms to reflect the non-profit, non-governmental nature of the regional media. He said that Radio Atinati was owned by an NGO, and was therefore not allowed to have commercial income but could attract donations. An appropriate form of incorporation should be found, so that newsrooms can both sell advertising and attract donations.

35

SESSION 6: MEDIA FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY

The last session was a conceptual discussion on the role of media in democratic society. Giorgi Tugushi, Georgia's Public Defender, spoke of the role of his office in supporting press freedom in Georgia. Gia Nodia, Chair of the Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development, spoke of the evolving nature of journalism and of the different roles assumed by media in transitional societies. Oleg Panfilov, Director of the Centre for Journalism in Extreme Situations and Dr. Karin Deutsch Karlekar, Coordinator of the Freedom of the Press Index at Freedom House, assessed the level of media freedom in Georgia both in the global and regional contexts; and Zviad Koridze, an independent journalist, made sharp critical remarks about the Georgian Governments treatment of the media. Giorgi Tugushi, Public Defender, reiterated the vision of press freedom voiced by the court of human rights. The press plays a crucial role in modern society and can diffuse information in any way which does not go against its functions. Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of modern democracy. It is also important to define the duties of public servants with regard to journalists. The court underlines the right of expression with regard to political views. This right applies not only to information that is positive but also to information that is shocking. A journalist has to cover court proceedings without preventing the court from functioning normally, but at the same time nobody can forbid journalists from covering court hearings. Freedom of speech is of special importance to the ombudsmans work. A major part of the 2009 report is dedicated to the media situation, and brings up concrete cases where the rights to freedom of expression of Georgian journalists were violated. The State should support timely and transparent investigations into cases where journalists' work was restricted. With regard to the Georgian Public Broadcaster (GPB), its financing has changed since 2004, when 0.15% of GDP was allocated to the station and its independence was guaranteed. There was also an important clause under which the budget of the GPB could not be lower than that of the previous year. The rule has changed, and the GPB now receives its funding from the state budget, giving the state the right to downsize the budget and thus employ it as leverage. The Public Defender dwelt on the case of TV 25 in Batumi and the tax debt it could not afford to pay. He spoke of the need to waive the requirements to pay the debt. He said he was working on ways to make sure that TV 25 kept broadcasting. Gia Nodia, Chair of the Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development, stressed the fact that media freedom was a good measurement of the level of development of a country's civil society. If one looked at media in this broad sense, Mr. Nodia said, one would get a mixed picture. Georgian media are open, diverse and relatively free, but at the same time unbalanced, economically weak, biased, and unprofessional. A positive trend is that all views are reflected in the media, and that the media legislation is very liberal. However, the abuse of journalists was alarming, but not at such a level as to undermine the work of the media as a whole. The economic weakness of media was one of the main problems that needed to be solved. Another problem typical for Georgian journalists is that they do not have their own

36

attitude towards the facts. The wish to inform the public rather than to indoctrinate them politically is not strong. Concrete recommendations or actions are impossible to set. Zviad Koridze, an independent journalist, said that it was difficult to find a formula to change the media without changing political standards in the country. He said there were voices which maintained that the media should not describe the reality but should create the reality, which is a widespread theory in Georgia but was not acceptable to him personally. He equated this theory to propaganda. Propaganda, in Mr. Koridzes opinion, was diffused both by pro-governmental and proopposition TV stations. Pro- and anti- governmental propaganda became a united voice during the August war, and the propaganda continued. Georgian journalists did not care for the facts, but rather for what the states attitude towards the facts was. For them, it did not matter what happened, but what the state thought had happened. Dr. Karin Deutsch Karlekar, Coordinator of the Freedom of the Press Index at Freedom House, said that Georgia ranked differently in various research and assessment indexes. The score for Georgia in the Freedom Forum index was 60 points (0-100), which was 120th place out of 190 countries. The score meant the country was partially free but on the verge of being not free. Since 2004, Georgia's score had decreased due to the deterioration in the political environment. On the positive side, Georgia had very good legislation and a low level of legal harassment and physical abuse of journalists. Its problems were more similar to those of Central and Eastern European countries than those of its immediate neighbours in the Caucasus. Oleg Panfilov, Director of the Center for Journalism in Extreme Situations, said that Georgian journalists had many more constitutional and legal guarantees than their colleagues in other post-Soviet countries. The existence of the opposition channels Maestro and Kavkasia and of the critical printed media was a subject of envy for their colleagues in other countries. Still, the situation was difficult. Mr. Panfilov listed the following recommendations: (i) the creation of a trade union, to create an important bond of solidarity among journalists; (ii) the creation of a Media Council, since a self-regulating institution was important to avoid taking cases to court. The basis of such Council would be the Code of Ethics. This code needed to be discussed and passed as soon as possible. Mr. Panfilov also thought the creation of discussion clubs would be helpful to teach journalists to talk to and to listen to each other. He called the situation in the television industry strange. It was important to monitor TV and determine the level of propaganda. Such research would establish a clearer understanding of the TV space in Georgia, and its findings would be important both for the Government and for the opposition. His final recommendation was to change the system of education in journalism. A new generation of journalists should have a different approach to their profession. One of the challenges is to teach them how to work in conflict areas and war situations. Unfortunately, it became clear during the August war that Georgian journalists were vulnerable, as they were unaware of safety rules.

37

DISCUSSION SESSION OF PANEL VI

Georgia's Public Defender Giorgi Tugushi was asked many questions during this discussion. Merab Merkviladze, Director of the TV 25 channel in Adjara, and Natia Kupreishvili, Director of the Regional Association of Broadcasters, spoke of TV 25s tax debt and of the general indebtedness of regional television stations. Mr. Merkviladze thanked the Ombudsman for drawing help to the channel, and asked him to initiate a financial amnesty for regional TV channels that had similar tax indebtedness problems. He said that the case of TV 25 revealed several shortcomings of this country: the first being the weakness of the court system and the second being problems with the system of taxation. He objected to terming some TV channels as oppositional. He said that he tried very hard to invite representatives of the Government to his channel's talk-shows, but that they refused to attend. He added that his channel never wanted to be an opposition station. Nino Danelia, Assistant Professor at GIPA, said that news programs, not talk shows, indicated the level of editorial independence and media freedom. She reiterated the need for TV stations to be released from the influence of political forces, and suggested that routine media monitoring should begin. Such monitoring would start with the Georgian Public Broadcaster. On a more positive note, Firdevs Robinson, Editor of the BBC Central Asia & Caucasus Service, stressed the importance of the positive developments she found during every new visit. According to her, during times of threats to national security, good quality journalism becomes even more important. Giorgi Tugushi, Georgia's Public Defender, stressed the need for a system of self-regulation and for the Code of Ethics to be implemented. He said that fairness, professionalism and impartiality were as important as the freedom of media.

38

WRAP-UP SESSION
During the wrap-up session, seminar participants examined the list of recommendations proposed by speakers and discussants. They were grouped into transparency of regulation and ownership, legislative changes, and professionalism and business areas. The participants went through the set of recommendations, and selected and agreed on key recommendations

39