Transcript Workshop conclusions Wolfgang Petzold Barbara Piotrowska Charles White Information and Communication Unit, DG REGIO.

Workshop conclusions
Wolfgang Petzold
Barbara Piotrowska
Charles White
Information and Communication Unit, DG REGIO
Workshop 1.A. Planning efficient communication
Chair: Jimmy Jamar, Head of Unit, European Commission, Directorate General for
Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, Communication and CAD Unit
Creating a communication plan from evaluation results - Kamila Davidova, Ministry
of Labour and Social Affairs, Ondrej Stefek, Naviga 4, Czech Republic
Hungarian Communication Plan- Judit Szucs, National Development Agency, Hungary
French communication strategy - Vasilije Kujacic, DIACT, France
Experience of Commission Representation in Barcelona – Laura Rahola Ortega, European
Commission Representation in Spain, Barcelona Office
Rapporteur: Annabelle Maupas, European Commission, Directorate General for Regional
Policy, Information and Communication Unit
1A Debate
Questions on how training of communication officers will
be carried out;
Cooperation with Commission representations and relays
useful;
Should the message be common or is there the need that the
public distinguishes between different funds?
Journalist training: be specific on stories, not so much on
technical details;
Communication one way? How about involving the public in
a more interactive way?
1 A Conclusions
We start from a communication challenge: people do not know
No standardised communication, different situations require
different approaches, but guidelines/communication tools for
communication officers and beneficiaries would be helpful
Evaluation matters and helps to make better choices (SWOT);
Bringing actors together and pooling resources is important,
i.e. use Commission Representations and information relays
(Europe Direct);
Giving content to the campaigns (brands, common logos;
stories)
Good feed-back measures are crucial.
Workshop 1.B. Helping beneficiaries communicate
Chair: Eddy Hartog, Head of Unit, European Commission, Directorate General for
Regional Policy, Thematic Development and Impact Unit
European Funds Fairs – Ewelina Budzinska-Gora, Silesia Marshal's Office, Poland
Make it sexy! Communication best practice - Jean-Christophe Binetti, Convis Consult
& Marketing GMBH, Germany
Media Training for Voluntary and Community Sector Beneficiaries - Richard Holmes,
Objective 1 Programme Directorate, Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber,
UK
Co-Operation of Managing Authority of CSF and Final beneficiaries for the
fulfilment of communication strategy – Evi
Panagiotakopoulou, Ministry of National Economy and Finance, Greece
Rapporteur: Sebastian Stetter, European Commission, Directorate General for
Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, ESF Coordination Unit
1B Debate
How to transmit information on the funds to beneficiaries?
How to encourage them to communicate effectively on the projects?
How to support and guide beneficiaries?
Tips:
• Declare communication activities as eligible expense
• Connect beneficiaries with media
• Efficient media trainings for beneficiaries can pay off in the no-cost presence
of beneficiaries and projects in the media
1B Conclusions
Understand your beneficiaries and involve them in the communication process
Beneficiaries are necessary for you to relay information to the public, especially the
one on the EU contribution to the regional development, but…..to communicate that,
you need to convince them
Provide useful guidelines: handbooks, web-based platforms for management of
communication actions.
Make your own communication visible, to convince beneficiaries to do the same
15 seconds messages from the speakers:
We are one continent, one people. We are here to help you make your life better
Invest in your future. Tell us the story!
Go ahead together!
You want to grow – do it with the EU money! It’s all in your hands!
Workshop 1.C. Informing the public
Chair: Ana Paula Laissy, Adviser to the Director General, European Commission, Directorate
General for Regional Policy, Relations with the Civil Society
Nation-wide publicity campaigns in little Estonia - Kristi Jõesaar and Annika Vilu, Ministry of
Finance, Estonia
Andalusian experience - María Goretti Minaya Llatas, Andalusia, Spain
Polish experience, Integrated Regional Operational Programme – Rafal Nowak, Ministry for
Regional Development, Poland
ESF publicity campaign – films - Dominique Jeremiasz, Head of Communication, Ministry of
Employment and Solidarity, France
Experience of the Commission Representation in Budapest - Kinga Kollar, Commission
Represenation in Budapest, Hungary
Rapporteur: Christian Juliusson, European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy,
Lithuania, Sweden and Denmark Unit
1C Debate
Estonia: Too many information sources? Road show visited 15 regions three times.
TV programmes emphasised humour.
Brochures included Russian versions very important in Baltic States.
Andalusia: Interest has prolonged journal. Web page, clips and kids programmes.
Poland: role of Euro Jargon. Importance of co-ordinating info points.
Role of outsourcing?
France: 45 second public service clips. Important simple homogeneous coherent
messages.
Hungary: Use of alternate channels. Joint communication plan
with Government
1C Conclusions
How co-operate with often sceptical, anti propaganda (esp. public sector) TV
stations?
Video on web?
How far can ministries trust out sourcing?
Important to share specifications with all parties.
How to handle Jargon? (Ignore or simplify?)
What is the cost of TV clips?
How do we contact journalists who publish for free?
Involvement of intermediate bodies.
Important to keep the approach simple.
Workshop 2.A. Transparency – presenting beneficiaries and projects
Chair: Michael Niejahr, Head of Unit, European Commission, Directorate General for Agriculture
and Rural Development, Coordination of horizontal questions concerning the clearance of accounts
Transparency in agricultural policy – Nacereddine Sekri, European Commission, Directorate
General for Agriculture and Rural Development
Transparency in Latvia – Sanda Rieksta, Ministry of Finance, Latvia
Transparency for ESF in Flanders - David Mellaerts, ESF-agentschap Flanders, Belgium
L’application du principe de transparence au sein du programme INTERREG III B Sud-ouest
européen: avantages et outils - Isabelle Roger, Joint Secretariat INTERREG III B South West of
Europe, Spain
A project database on Internet - Malin Lingefelt, Information officer, Objective 2 South Sweden
and Objective 2 Swedish Islands, Sweden
Rapporteur: Dominique Be, European Commission, Directorate General for Employment, Social
Affairs and Equal Opportunities, ESF Coordination
2A Debate
Q: How to safeguard the accurateness of project
information on the internet presentation? A: Use databases
linked to management systems
Q: Are applications equally applied throughout the
INTERREG programmes? A: Yes, as far as the B-strand is
concerned
Data protection issues? …managed at project level…
2A Conclusions
Publication of final beneficiaries‘ lists on the internet does exist
already to a quite sophisticated degree (Latvia; INTERREG, Flanders;
South Sweden/Swedish Islands) while applications and content varies
Challenge: attracting media by content and means is not an easy task
as well as reaching the public and legitimising the action
Important: Re-use existing information and make it searchable
(database)
Make it attractive and user-friendly by combining text and e.g. maps,
photos
Paper is not dead!
Looking ahead: develop and provide common tools based on best
practices
Workshop 2.B. Going beyond press releases: media relations, how
should we tell the story?
Chair: Eva Kaluzynska, Spokesperson for Regional Policy, European Commission,
Directorate General for Communication
Building media relationships - Carleen Kelemen and Mark Yeoman, Objective One
Partnership for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, UK
Guidelines about the organisation of a press office on structural funds - Claudia
Salvi, FORMEZ, Italy
Putting the media in its place - Roger Hope, Communications Manager, Special EU
Programmes Body, UK
Experience of the Commission Representation in France - Maria Kokkonen, Head
of Press Service, Commission Representation in France
Rapporteur: Ulla Ropponen, European Commission, Directorate General for Regional
Policy, Territorial Co-operation unit
2B Debate
Northern Ireland: Between awareness and commitment. Readers no longer trust
press. Aim at commitment. Texting, blogging, silver surfers. Great lovers= great
communicators(?) or vice versa
Italy: Press offices in MA; cheap and effective but hard to control. Professional
help. Human interest. Brief media. Simple language.
Job and task description (maintain trustworthy, credible relations.)
Cornwall: The facts (I wasn’t aware…) Regular, reliable, easy to access. Objective
One delivers…Understand the news cycle…
EC Rep in France: Direct contact with press. Local anchorage, visuals. Free press
exploding. Find a hero. Use appropriate language. Day to day, real life stories.
2B Conclusions
Images, anchorage, presence. How benefit from EU reps? Must analyse way
message comes across.
Employ a journalist! They know what is needed. The real news is word of
mouth: what beneficiaries say. And don’t forget the memory/history. It is what
gives the experience. Freeze the web.
Maximise professional skills. Involve media from the start, train them. Monitor all
activities. Remember people are the champions. Communicate unto others as
you would be communicated unto…
Work at project level, recognise differences between national/regional
information needs.
Make good use of the Reps networks.
Workshop 2.C. Structural funds and the internet
Chair: Raphaël Goulet, Head of Unit, European Commission, Directorate General for
Regional Policy, Strategic programming and relations with the EP, the CoR and the EESC
Using internet sites to inform potential beneficiaries and the public: the Greek
experience - Ivana Doulgerof, CSF Management Organisation Unit SA, Greece
Single Window eCommunication - Peter Farago, National Development Agency, Hungary
Innovative ways of reaching out to stakeholders - Kirsti Mijnhijmer, Interreg IIIB/IVB North
Sea Region Programme, Denmark
Europa-MV.de – a regional one-stop-shop for EU-funding and networking – Wolf Born,
Deputy Director, Mecklenburg–Vorpommern Information Office to the EU
Rapporteur: John Walsh, European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy,
Thematic Development and Impact
2C Debate
Can internet help us and how?
Is it the appropriate tool to communicate the Cohesion Policy to
beneficiaries and general public?
Should our communication strategy be web-based only?
What changes in comparison to the previous programming period?
Various uses of internet
2C Conclusions
The internet cannot be a sole means of communication, it must be integrated in the
whole communication strategy and supported by other information measures.
Internet provides a medium to pass messages to different user target groups.
Effective use requires that the target groups are clearly identified, clear messages
and adapted materials are developed.
Good internet sites can act as effective multipliers for implementing bodies. Once
they realise this advantage, they can commit more to servicing the site.
Internet allows and, at the same time obliges to be creative. Use it!
Tips:
• All data must be presented in simple, jargon free language
• Keep texts short. Use subpages to develop details
• Keep information accurate and timely
• Ensure coherent design and clear navigation features
• Be aware that users browse webpages – use more photos and graphics
Workshop 3.A. Networks: working together on communication
Chair: Georgios Markopouliotis, Head of Unit, European Commission, Directorate
General for Communication, Geographical Coordination
Growing with Europe - from Murcia via Brussels to Burgenland - Sonja Seiser,
Regionalmanagement Burgenland GmbH, Austria
Networking for success communication: past experiences for the future Plan
- Anna Maria Linsalata, Regione Emilia-Romagna, Italy
Practices and experiences from Europe Direct network - Claire Sarda Vergès,
Europe Direct Pyrénées Languedoc Roussillon, France
Networking in the UK and at the Community level - James Ritchie, European
Social Fund Division, Department for Work and Pensions, United Kingdom
Rapporteur: Charles White, European Commission, Directorate General for
Regional Policy, Information and Communication Unit
3A Debate
Burgenland: adaptation of the “Crecemos con Europa” game: a kind of Regional
Policy trivial pursuits. Humour, entertainment.
Emilia Romagna: Involving all partners at an early stage in setting up. Goal
oriented approach for new period.
Languedoc: The achievements of Europe Direct in demystifying Brussels and
relating message to everyday life.
UK, ESF networks The importance of contacts in a multi level situation with
players of all kinds. Aiming for real value added from the network
3A Conclusions
You can save money by holding meetings!
Networking really helps but must be properly managed.
Humour is as essential as correctly targeting the interest groups.
Communication on the funds, its successes, stars and winners may not overcome.
Euroscepticism, but constant openness and honesty can help.
Evaluating success by hard indicators is probably not realistic. But the new period sees
constant reporting.
What more can the Commission do? Keep INFORM as informal as possible…
Workshop 3.B. Cooperation with the Commission Representations and
other information relays
Chair: Thierry Daman, Head of Unit, European Commission, Directorate General for
Regional Policy, Information and Communication Unit
Experience of the Commission Representation in the UK – Sarah Lambert,
Commission Representation in London
Experience of the Commission Representation in Germany – Barbara Steffner,
Commission Representation in Berlin
Europe Direct Hungary - Barbara Kerner, Europe Direct Baranya County/Pécs,
Hungary
Europe Direct Denmark - Niels Chresten Andersen, Head of Europe Direct Bornholm,
Denmark
Rapporteur: Wolfgang Petzold, European Commission, Directorate General for
Regional Policy, Information and Communication Unit
3B Debate
Can Commission representations coordinate devolved EU
programmes efficiently?
Complicated terminology and institutional setting: Are
Operational Programmes something for hospitals?
Are toilets for tourists (EU financed) something to speak about?
Can more be learnt from networks such as those coordinating
e.g. former Community Initiatives?
What happens once the funding declines? How to
communicate the broader picture? Does the “solidarity“ narrative
work?
Do overall messages matter given the diversity of target
groups?
3B Conclusions
Information has to be part of the programme management; we
have to know each other
Most efficient: proactive and local communication based on
results;
Communication partnership with Commission
Representations and information relays has become an
obligation under the Implementing Regulation…but still needs to
be put into practice;
To be clarified: which mutual benefit exist between MAs and
Commission representations?
Involve with regional authorities managing the structural funds
more often, earlier and based on strategic planning;
Timing of programmes/projects matters;
Workshop 3.C. Crossing borders – communicating Cohesion Policy
across Europe
Chair: Ann-Kerstin Myleus, European Commission, Directorate General for Regional
Policy, Territorial Co-operation Unit
Understanding communication - A clear and consistent message - Henrik
Josephson, The Interreg IVB North Sea Region Programme, Denmark
Building the CENTRAL Community - enabling and monitoring beneficiaries Claus Schultze, CENTRAL EUROPE Programme JTS, Austria
Experience from INTERREG IIIA/TACIS: Telling the Lithuanian, Polish and
Russian story - Giedrius Surplys, INTERREG Joint Technical Secretariat, Lithuania
Rapporteur: Peter Fischer, European Commission, Directorate General for Regional
Policy, Information and Communication Unit
3C Debate
How to embed communication in the project implementation cycle: project leaders
lose most of their energy on reporting to the authorities.
How to engage message carriers at project level? : seminars, trainings, publicity
tool kits, etc
INTERREG programmes are often about producing knowledge. It is more difficult
to communicate than infrastructural projects. Communicators’ tasks should be to
sell it well, and also to accumulate it and promote, to allow for building it up, also at
the Community level.
In the territorial cooperation programmes, you need to rely in conveying your
message to the media and public on project developers, since they know the local
environment and can access media more easily
3C Conclusions
Working and communication environment is very different for each programme,
especially in the territorial cooperation = there is no one size fits all approach to
communication.
First task of communication manager is to root in the importance of
communication in their own organisations.
Communication adds value to your programme – always sell this message!
(attracts more funding, better projects and better people to work for the projects
and for your organisation).
Do not confuse information with communication! Explain and tailor the right
information!