europcom proceedings

PROGRAMME

EuroPCom is organised by

In partnership with

EU partners

EUROPEAN UNION

Committee of the Regions

COMMUNICATING IN EUROPE / COMMUNICATING ON EUROPE

EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON PUBLIC COMMUNICATION

WHY ATTEND?The 1st European Public Communication Conference aims to bring together public sectorcommunicators from across Europe and from different levels of government to discusscurrent and future challenges for public sector communications. The goal of EuroPCom is tostimulate • professionalisation• knowledge sharing• networking 400 PUBLIC COMMUNICATION PROFESSIONALSThe EuroPCom conference will gather up to 400 government communication professionals:• • • directors of communication in the regions and major European cities,

communication directors, information officers and spokespersons in the Member States,the officials responsible for communication in the European institutions,

• the staff responsible for communication in European associations and local and regionalauthorities,

• members of the networks and associations of public communicators.

6 THEMES, 2 ANGLESThe conference will be dealing with 6 major themes:

Communicating about Europe at multiple levels of government

Making public communication more efficient and professional

Communicating in ways that encourage public participation

Sustainability and communication

Relations with the press and the media

Branding states, regions, cities and municipalities

Each theme will be addressed from two angles:

More information and registration: www.europcom.net

• Communicating in Europe: professional expertise in Europe with regards to each theme• Communication on Europe: how could it incorporate a European perspective?

PROGRAMME


In partnership with

EU partners

EUROPEAN UNION


















PROGRAMME


In partnership with

EU partners

EUROPEAN UNION


















PROGRAMME


In partnership with

EU partners

EUROPEAN UNION


















PROGRAMME


In partnership with

EU partners

EUROPEAN UNION


















Communicating in Europe Communicating on Europe

BrussEls, 12-14 OCtOBEr 2010

Conference Proceedings

PROGRAMME


In partnership with

EU partners

EUROPEAN UNION


















Organised by

CommuniCat ing in Eur opE – CommuniCat ing on Eur op E - Conference proceedings 2010 3

table of contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Six themes, two angles, 700 participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Opening session: 13 October 2010, 10:00-12:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Communicating in/on Europe: The challenge of proximity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Parallel workshops: 13 October 2010, 14:30-15:45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Stories from Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Communication and Web 2 .0: The impact of social networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Getting people to vote . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Regional marketing: Creating a brand strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Parallel workshops: 13 October 2010, 16:15-17:30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Linking public sector communication professionals across Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Sustainability and communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Getting people behind a project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

Parallel workshops: 14 October 2010, 09:30-10:45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Europe going local . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Communicating with the media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Changing behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Closing session: 14 October 2010, 11:45-12:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Public sector communication in Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Conference conclusions by the organisers and presentation of the EuroPCom platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

4 CommuniCat ing in Eur op E – Communi Cat ing on Eur op E - Conference proceedings 2010

Seven hundred public sector communication professionals from across Europe gathered in Brussels between 12 and 14 October 2010 for the 1st European Public Communication Conference (EuroPCom) at the European Parliament and the Committee of the Regions (CoR) to discuss how they can work together to improve public sector communications and raise awareness about EU policies at local, regional, national and European levels of government .

Organised by the Belgian regions of Flanders and Wallonia and the CoR, the conference focused on six themes:

Making public communications more efficient and professional;

Communicating about Europe at multiple levels of government;

Communicating in ways that encourage public participation;


Relations with the press and the media;

Branding states, regions, cities and municipalities .

Each theme was addressed from two angles:

• Communicating in Europe: exchanging professional expertise in Europe about each theme;• Communicating on Europe: bringing a European perspective to public communication .

The event's partners were the Belgian Federal Government, the Brussels-Capital Region and the German-speaking Community of Belgium . The conference was co-organised with the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission .

More than 90 speakers from local, regional, national and EU level, together with numerous academics and journalists presented and discussed best practices in communications over the course of ten workshops and opening and closing sessions .

The end of the conference saw the launch of a web-based platform which can be found – together with more information about the event - at: www.europcom.net .

Presentations and videos from the conference are published at: www.cor.europa.eu/europcom

Introduction

six themes, two angles, 700 participants


Opening session: 13 October 2010, 10:00-12:15

Communicating in/on Europe: the challenge of proximityThe conference participants were welcomed to the European Parliament by stavros lambrinidis, Vice-President of the European Parliament and Mercedes Bresso, President of the Committee of the Regions . Their opening remarks were followed by a panel debate, moderated by Pierre lemoine, Editor-in-Chief of Europolitique, a Brussels weekly newspaper . The panellists were Juana lahousse-Juarez, Director-General for Communication at the European Parliament, Christine roger, Director of Media and Communication at the Council of the European Union, Claus sørensen, Director-General for Communication at the European Commission, Agnieszka Kudlinska, Director of the European Information Department at the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Aurora Masip i treig, Director-General for Communication of the Government of Catalonia from Spain and Almuth Westecker-Hecker, Director of Communication for the City of Frankfurt/Main from Germany .

“As institutions, we have to find common grounds in order to communicate not with 100 different voices but if possible on a number of major topics that go through us all”

Stavros Lambrinidis, Vice-President of the European Parliament

In his welcome address, stavros lambridinis focused on communication between the EU institutions and the citizens from the perspective of a Member of the European Parliament . Recalling that the declaration ‘Communicating Europe in Partnership’ was signed by the European Parliament, the Council of the EU and the European Commission two years ago, he emphasized the need to convey consistent and coherent messages to citizens . Telling citizens that their votes mattered was as important as developing good and effective policies . He described the main motto for public communications in Europe as ‘United in Diversity’, which meant communicating not only in terms of unified messages, but also highlighting the diversity of opinions in the EU . He emphasised that diversity was the EU's asset and that all citizens had their own individual points of view

about Europe . In his opinion, the public would be more interested in EU affairs if these diverse points of view were represented in the communication process . He noted that the European Parliament had adopted an updated communication strategy last July that would be followed by an Action Plan 2011-2014 .

We have to imagine communication to focus on the 'brand Europe' in a way that involves our regions and cities."

Mercedes Bresso, President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes Bresso stressed the Committee of Regions' strong support for the EuroPcom network of communication professionals in Europe . She explained that the main aim of public communications should be to address the scepticism and ignorance of citizens about how the EU functioned and to make them understand what the EU actually gave them . Noting that the Lisbon Treaty had introduced a new political architecture with the emergence of a number of new actors and a redistribution of


powers, she highlighted the need to develop a new architecture for communicating about Europe . She emphasised that the key to creating a more accessible, familiar and concrete ‘brand of Europe’ was to adopt a multifaceted and multilevel approach to communication through cooperation between the European institutions, Member States, regions and the cities . She noted that communication should not be restricted to Brussels and that one of the EU's most important objectives should be ‘going local’ in public communication . She described the mayors, regional presidents and elected persons in the regions as people who effectively acted as ‘spokespersons’ for the EU in their contacts with the public .

"The most important challenge is to communicate Europe in terms of its effects on ordinary citizens and their everyday life."

Almuth Westecker-Hecker, Director of Communication, Communication Department, City of Frankfurt/Main, Germany

Pierre Lemoine, Editor-in-Chief of Europolitique

Aurora Masip i treig talked about her region's experiences with trying to extend its network linking the Catalan government to Europe . She said that one of the main obstacles to communicating about Europe in the Member States was the tendency of local and national politicians to focus on local and national aspects . However, she signalled a change in this approach saying that more and more politicians were now focusing on how they could establish better links with Europe . She felt it was necessary to explain how Europe was helping to defend the rights and interests of EU citizens .

Agnieszka Kudlinska, Director of the European Information Department at the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs

"One of the obstacles in front of communicating Europe in Member States is the tendency of local and national politicians to focus on local and national issues".

Aurora Masip i Treig, Director-General for Communication, Government of Catalonia, Spain


Pierre lemoine opened the panel debate with the following major questions: How could we create a new communications strategy and architecture for the European institutions? How could we make communications work based on a multifaceted approach? How could we ‘go local’ and work on a decentralized form of communication?

Almuth Westecker-Hecker presented the local authorities' perspective on communication with the citizens, as well as with other cities and regions . In her view, the most important challenge was to communicate Europe by focusing on its effect on ordinary people and their everyday lives . She said that to bring citizens and Europe closer together, local authorities could promote the European aspect of their projects and measures . She emphasised the fact that there was very limited financial support for public communications in general but that new methods of communication such as social networks and online communications could provide comparatively good value communication solutions that were capable of reaching out to larger groups of people to exchange opinions .

Agnieszka Kudlinska provided an overview of the European communication activities carried out by the 17 regional offices in Poland ahead of the forthcoming Polish EU Presidency . She said that the main communication concept of the Polish Presidency was based on the idea of ‘Europe vis à vis the citizens’ . Noting that around 80% of Polish citizens had voted in favour of EU membership in the accession referendum, she said that they did not need to promote the EU in Poland, but rather that they needed to tell people what the EU meant for its citizens . She added that they had organized over 100 meetings with NGOs and the local media to explain what the Polish Presidency would focus on . She emphasized the importance of NGO participation in the debate on EU policies .


Christine Roger,Director of Media and Communication at the Council of the European Union

Claus sørensen stated that the days when people believed that everything could be done from Brussels were long over and that it was now all about ‘going local’ . He argued that every issue at European level had a local impact and that, as a result, the main challenge involved establishing a link between Brussels and national governments, local stakeholders, regions and cities . He confirmed that the communications budget was indeed tight, and that it was unlikely to increase given the current economic crisis . In his opinion, the main aim of communication on Europe should be to avoid duplication and a lack of coordination .

The subsequent debate with the audience addressed a number of questions about the need for a clearer picture regarding how the communications budget was spent, the importance of achieving a jargon-free, multilingual form of communication in order to be closer to the citizens, the need to use communications not only for certain milestone events but also as part of an on-going, permanent process and the need for the EU to help journalists gain a better understanding of Europe .

In their conclusions, the panellists and the moderator highlighted the following points:

We were moving towards a communication society, this should be a two-way form of communication with the citizens .

Europe should work at the closest possible level to the citizens to encourage them to participate in the debate .

There was a need to tell people how the EU related to their everyday lives, so that we could involve citizens more and more in future projects .

The problem of communication was a medium-long term issue, not just one that was addressed a couple of months before a referendum or elections .

Cooperation was vital, not only among institutions in Brussels, but also cooperation with local and regional institutions . We should focus once again on the citizen . We should use direct communication tools .

The EuroPcom community would be useful for everyone . Everybody hoped that it would grow and continue .


Juana Lahousse-Juarez, Director-General for Communication at the European Parliament

Juana lahousse-Juarez discussed the reasons why citizens could feel distanced from EU matters and highlighted the importance of adopting a local and regional approach to communication . She said that the different political structures and national politics in the 27 Member States created a challenge for integrated public communications in Europe, but that it was possible to turn this challenge into an opportunity by introducing a bottom-up approach to communication . She considered that on issues where Europe was unable to provide supranational answers, it was the dialogue between the regions and communities that should provide the answer . In her view, one very important aspect of the European Parliament's recent communication activities was the MEPs personal and direct engagement and communication with the public through their blogs and twitter .

"First of all, we have to stop annoying citizens with all kinds of political initiatives every single day".

Claus Sørensen, Director-General for Communication, European Commission

Christine roger focused on the challenge of expressing the diversity of voices from the 27 Member States, which was an essential element of the EU's democratic environment . She explained the EU Council’s efforts to establish a common working group of communication directors and spokespersons from the 27 Member States to overcome this communication challenge . She said they often received criticism about communication in Europe, mostly based on discontent, but she felt that there had been some progress in recent years, particularly after the ‘Communicating Europe in Partnership’ document . Noting that the structure of the EU Council had been transformed by the Lisbon Treaty, she predicted more future developments in its communication policy and activities .


Parallel workshops: 13 October 2010, 14:30-15:45

stories from Europe

laurent thieule opened the workshop by reflecting on the possible added value of communication on Europe, especially for its citizens . It was important to enrich the institutional debate with local voices, and to bring public sector communications closer to the daily lives of people and to introduce it

into their everyday discussions . Mr Thieule then invited the first three speakers to take the floor, to be followed by a first set of comments from the experts .

Jean lemaître explained how the IHECS School had integrated the European message into its curriculum . IHECS Masters' students had carried out a communication project on how to talk about Europe in a deprived neighbourhood of Brussels . The publication presented a number of

examples of ongoing, EU-funded regeneration work in the neighbourhood and included articles on topics relating to the everyday lives of local people, such as how to set up a small

business with the help of EU funding . This magazine was a genuine, hands-on learning project for the students, and an informative source of information for its target group . However, the question of how to include the general public in the European debate still remained something of a challenge . Mr . Lemaître stressed the importance of providing more and higher quality information on Europe across all media, in all levels of communication, including at local level .

Joëlle Deglin presented the Walloon approach to communicating on Europe . It consisted of three communication campaigns: Europe works, which presented EU-funded projects; the Open Doors Day, which gave access to co-funded museums and tourist sites; and, lastly, a campaign to

establish contacts with businesses and the public to inform them about Europe . A mix of written press, radio adverts and information brochures had proven to be very effective: the results of this campaign were then measured, and showed that people clearly had a better understanding of why the EU

Moderated by laurent thieule, Director of Communication at the Committee of the Regions, the first workshop included contributions from the following speakers: Jean lemaître, Director of the Institute for Higher Communication Studies (IHECS) in Brussels, Joëlle Deglin, Communications Officer of the Public Service of Wallonia, Belgium, ruska Boyadzhieva, Director of the EU Integration Department in the Municipality of Burgas, Bulgaria, raphaël Goulet, Head of Unit for Communication at DG Regional Policy at the European Commission, sixtine Bouygues, Acting Director at DG Communication at the European Commission, and Zvonimir Frka-Petešić, Head of Press & Public Diplomacy at the Mission of Croatia to the EU . Two experts were also present at the session: Professor Gianpietro Mazzoleni of the Department of Social and Political Studies at the University of Milan, Italy, and Peter Fjerring, Head of European Affairs of the Danish Association of Local Governments, Denmark


Parallel workshops: 13 October 2010, 14:30-15:45 - Stories from Europe

was important for Wallonia as a result of the campaign . Ms . Deglin concluded by presenting the Walloon projects during the Belgian EU Presidency, including an exhibition on the construction of Europe, competitions and activities such as walking tours to discover co-funded buildings .

ruska Boyadzhieva stressed the importance of communication on European values and policies . In Bulgaria, only 40% of the population identified themselves as European citizens . Hence, it was important to interpret European policies at local and regional level and to bring the EU

institutions and European programs closer to the people . Ms Boyadzhieva gave a presentation on a local event which had been organised during the OPEN DAYS and which had brought together institutions, NGOs and businesses to discuss common challenges in a European context in order to create a platform for debate among stakeholders . In her final remarks, Ms Boyadzhieva encouraged communication through concrete projects, which could be supported by awards, short videos or other communication tools .

The moderator invited Peter Fjerring, in the role of expert, to comment on the first set of presentations . Mr Fjerring emphasised that, in order to convey the message effectively, it was important to take into account the needs of the given target group and to remember that emotions and feelings in communication were of key importance . For example, it was not possible to communicate about Europe in the same way in the old and in the new Member States . One means of communication was not enough . It was important to reflect on how people could identify themselves with the European project .

raphaël Goulet began by stating that even if regional policy was a major EU policy field responsible for numerous impressive investments affecting the quality of peoples' lives, only one third of the EU's population was actually aware of its existence . The communication plans of the Managing

Authorities of European funds were therefore considered to be particularly important . It was vital to communicate with reference to specific projects, by highlighting major projects and to use inaugurations, information billboards, events and awards such as the RegioStars as communication tools . Furthermore, DG Regio had launched a number of networks such as INFORM and Regionetwork2020, for sharing experiences and facilitating two-way communications .

sixtine Bouygues presented the communications campaign on the 112 European emergency number . It was specially targeted at young people and travellers, in 5 languages, based on the results of a target group study . The campaign used Internet websites and videos as its

main forms of media . At the launch of the campaign, only 25% of EU citizens knew about "112"; since then, the website had attracted a very high number of new visitors, and the project was ongoing . Mrs Bouygues emphasized the importance of taking into account the multicultural environment, and focusing on specific target groups, in order to pass on the message effectively .

Zvonimir Frka-Petešić noted that the Croatian population was only mildly interested in European affairs . The financial crisis, the EU-scepticism of the rural population and the passivity of the young were major challenges for communicating the European message effectively . However, the EU Info Points and the media, which numbered eight permanent correspondents on European affairs, worked together with the Croatian government to inform the public about European issues . The main objective was to inform the entire population, by providing non-partial information, and to mobilize the Croatians for the referendum on EU-membership . To achieve this, actions such as exhibitions, conferences, study trips and events like "the Europe Week" had been organised across the country .

Gianpetro Mazzoleni, in his comments on the second set of presentations, emphasised the need to ‘connect the disconnected’, by sharing good practices such as the RegioStars Awards . It was also important to find ways of measuring the effectiveness of a communications campaign, even if such evaluations were often unreliable and expensive . Mr Mazzoleni regretted that access to TV networks for EU communications remained limited due to the expense involved; television remained a powerful form of media, especially for reaching out to the public at large .

The short debate with the audience broadened the discussions to touch on the need for interactivity in policy making . Knowing how to tell a story – and to whom – was vital today, if we wanted to share our message . If we put our different stories of Europe together, we could start communicating a genuine European identity .



Communication and Web 2 .0: The impact of social networking

Communication and Web 2.0: the impact of social networking

stan Magniart gave a presentation on a citizen initiative launched by Greenpeace, which had required the collection of one million signatures across Europe . The real objective in this case had been to get people interested in a European issue . The European Citizen Initiative (ECI) not only allowed citizens to participate in setting the political agenda . It was more than just a tool for decision-making . The ECI also represented a tool for reaching stakeholders and for connecting with the citizens . He also mentioned the example of the British Parliament, which was in the process of implementing its ePetition (petition on-line) system . This type of system made it easier to pass on information from the Parliament to the public . This was much more than just an e-mail inbox .

stephen Clark presented the various tools (social networks) that were used by the European Parliament . The most used was facebook . For example, Jerzy Buzek, President of the European Parliament, had received some 151 comments and replied 30 times within the space of just 45 minutes . Mr .

Clark gave details of the European Parliament's online strategy

and stressed the importance of being integrated into online communities and of being where people were .

roberto Franchini presented his project with Web 2 .0, namely the presence of the Emilia-Romagna region on social networks . In his view, the main reasons for being part of the online communities were to increase the information . which the public institutions provided via the internet, to disseminate

information about activities and proposals put forward by the region's administration, and to attract new target groups and citizens . The Italian challenge was to go from a social network to a community and also to be present on the mobile internet .

Bridgette Wessels stressed that there was a difference between a social network and a community . The key question was how could we make people feel part of a community? She emphasised that communication needed to be personalised, public opinion should be collected systematically and dialogue should be encouraged between communities . The

Niels thogersen, communications advisor and Honorary Vice-President of the Club of Venice, was the moderator of the second workshop, which saw contributions from the following speakers: stan Magniart of Publicis Consultants from Paris, stephen Clark, Head of the Web Communications Unit at the Directorate General for Communication at the European Parliament, roberto Franchini, Director of Communication for the Emilia-Romagna Region in Italy, John J. O’Flaherty, Manager at Citizenscape from Donegal, Ireland, and radovan Geist, Editor-in-Chief of EurActiv .sk from Slovakia . The experts in the workshop were Bridgette Wessels, Lecturer in Sociology at the University of Sheffield, United Kingdom, and Geert lovink, Founding Director of the Institute of Network Cultures, The Netherlands .



Communication and Web 2 .0: The impact of social networking

internet was a worldwide concept . She also reflected on the place of Europe, which was somewhere between "local" and "worldwide" . It was a question of identifying which strategies made it possible reach citizens at a European level . The other aspect, which she highlighted, was the issue of trust . Did the public trust social networks and communities? If there was no trust, there was no way we could talk about communities . That could not work .

John J O’Flaherty introduced his project Citizenscape (a town council on-line), which aimed to tackle the democratic deficit . The service integrated both on-line (official website, social networking spaces) and off-line communication tools . One of the main lessons learned from this

project was that when co-producing content with the target audience, moderators were unable to fully control or moderate the content . A second point was that democracy required accountability, meaning that citizens needed to identify themselves, even in online environments . Building these communities took time (and needed planning) . To ensure user knowledge of Web 2 .0, it was necessary to use complementary tools for off-line awareness and training support .

radovan Geist focused on practices, which the EU institutions should refrain from on Web 2 .0 . In his presentation entitled ‘EU communication: 5 stupid things you should not do especially when flirting with Web 2 .0’, he highlighted that the main objective of the EU institutions' presence on social

networks should not focus on its image, but be all about being transparent and open to debate . Secondly, communication should not be confused with marketing . The EU was not a washing powder, but a political project, he argued . Thirdly, the message should not be unified . Local multipliers could do a better job spreading the message than any centralised

form of communication . Fourthly, the decentralisation of communication channels could give the EU an increasingly greater presence in local debates . And finally, the existence of blogs and other direct communication tools did not necessarily mean that they were effective . Even if the message got distorted, 'translators' or 'interpreters' of the messages were vital to the process .

Geert lovink stressed that if the EU wanted to be an actor in Web 2 .0, the EU institutions had to provide up-to-date information using tools such as open access, open data, etc . The power of the internet derived from its capacity for immediate communication . The internet was a central platform and people

were used to this . There were tendencies to break up this open platform into walled gardens using software technology . However, this software also enabled a more personalised form of communication, which meant it was possible to bring communication 'closer to people' . This was an evolving process and thought should be given to what this meant for public communications .


Getting people to vote

Marc Jorna stressed that, during elections such as those for the European Parliament in 2009, political parties and the candidates needed to take up the challenge to motivate the public to vote . Their campaigns needed to inform the public about crucial events and to generate

public interest in the work of the European Parliament . It was in 2009 that the European Commission first decided to help raise awareness about the European elections through a collective effort . The campaign included over 1,000 events in Europe including conferences, school visits, a campaign with MTV Music Television, spots on Euronews television and on the European radio network, TV and cinema clips, and e-mails to people telling them to pass the message on to their constituents . Even though Mr . Jorna concluded that it had not actually been proven that the European Commission's campaign had been directly responsible for increasing voter participation, the awareness raising campaign by political parties and their adjusted programs had had an impact that was remembered, and the collective effort involved had shown that it was worth continuing .

Deirdre Farrell gave an assessment of the increase in voter participation in Ireland iduring the two referendums on the Lisbon Treaty . The Treaty was rejected in the first referendum, only to be approved in the second . The key factor in her view was the importance of raising awareness

in order to change the attitudes of voters . She stated that campaigning had convinced people to vote or change their opinion and that the turnout of 53 percent had risen to 59 percent . Along with socio-economic and circumstantial reasons, voluntary abstention had also been a factor due to a lack of information provided in the first referendum . Also, many citizens had decided not to vote in the first referendum due to a lack of interest . The situation changed during the course of the second referendum, however, as key issues were addressed, official information improved all of which meant that the citizens felt more informed . She concluded that is was worth addressing the concerns that people had had, and that there had clearly been an increase in voters' knowledge as the communications material was comprehensible and had assumed a lower level of knowledge among the target audience . There was also greater use of new media in the second campaign and greater involvement of civil society and celebrities .

This workshop was moderated by Martin territt, Head of the European Commission Representation in Dublin, Ireland . The speakers were Marc Jorna, Head of Unit, Directorate General for Communication at the European Commission, Deirdre Farrell, Press Officer at the Permanent Representation of the Republic of Ireland to the EU, susanne Oberhauser, Director of Relations with Citizens at the European Parliament, Heidi Zikulnig, Director of the EuropeDirect Network in Styria, Austria, Alicja Defratyka, Project Manager at the Civil Development Forum Foundation – FOR in Poland, Jo steyaert, Founder and Managing Partner of Indigov, Belgium and Professor Mark Franklin from the European University Institute in Florence, Italy .

Parallel workshops: 13 October 2010, 14:30-15:45 - Getting people to vote


susanne Oberhauser gave an overview of the European Parliament's initiative launched in 2009 to get people involved in the elections to the European Parliament and to raise awareness about them . One challenge was that EU parties needed to gain influence over national parties in the

Member States if they were to be capable of creating real and tangible policies, which concerned all Europeans . A collective effort, cooperation among institutions, the regionalisation of activities, as well as improved communication would increase participation, attract voters and demonstrate that the EU could have a positive impact on people's everyday lives . She concluded that people had to identify with the EU and to gain first hand experience of its activities if they were to go out and vote . The European Parliament therefore used an interactive website, forum, and media workshops with this in mind . In addition, the visitor centre would soon provide an informational meeting point for the 500,000 people expected to visit each year .

Heildi Zikulnig introduced the campaign ‘We are Europe’ (Wir sind Europa) and ‘Europe is not a monster’ (Europa ist kein Monster) that had been developed to increase enthusiasm about Europe . As young people were able to vote at the age of 16, 200 partners, 50 initiatives and

public bodies had got involved in some 80 events to stimulate interest among young people and to encourage them to participate in the EP elections . EU experts informed students about EU projects and the initiative had continued to run after the 2009 election . A number of challenges had arisen, however, as the regional governments and mayors were reluctant to get involved in EU issues . In conclusion, she noted that the interest in European issues was growing slowly but steadily, which showed that their efforts had borne fruit

Alicja Defratyka gave an assessment of a social campaign/competition, which had been organised in Poland, and was entitled ‘The navel of Europe’, which encouraged people to take part in the European elections . The turnout rate increased by

almost 4%, from 20 .87% in 2004 to 24 .53% in 2009 . The campaign was supported by 300 organisations and a budget of 140,000 euros was spent on manufacturing gadgets such as stickers, badges, posters and maintaining the website . The event attracted interest from the media while the value of the media campaign using the metro, trams, cinema and TV for publicity, which was free of charge, was estimated to amount to around one million euros .

Jo steyaert introduced i-vote as a way of connecting with people by making them think about the elections and by asking them to answer 20 questions on key issues . The creation of a social network made it possible to carry out a detailed

comparison of the answers given by members of political parties, politicians, celebrities, and other voters . Overall, the results were positive as the outcomes led to a discussion on the internet, based on the results of the multimedia campaign .

Mark Franklin felt it was an achievement that voter turnout had increased slightly in EU elections and that a sharp decrease had been averted . He mentioned the importance of communicating with the citizens as the European elections

appeared to be something of an unattractive product to sell . The reasons why people voted needed to be addressed; equally, it was necessary to make the elections more engaging as some people only went to the polls out of habit, because of family loyalties, or as a means of showing their support for a particular party . Therefore, there was a need for research on European elections and on methods of communicating these elections to the general public . A campaign had to be specific if it was to successfully sell the idea; it needed to appeal to the EU population and to address their issues and concerns . He concluded that there was a substantial need to direct and encourage more efforts by politicians towards the public .

Parallel workshops: 13 October 2010, 14:30-15:45 - Getting people to vote


regional marketing: Creating a brand strategy

Mark Watts opened the debate by presenting the speakers, who had all succeeded in translating the identity of their region into a strong brand . He noted that promoting Europe's regions was a growing aspect of public sector communication at local level . Mr . Watts introduced the

main subject of the discussion – 'With an increasing territorial competitiveness, how can a brand give a city or a region national or even international status?', and asked the speakers to take the floor .

Jean-Christophe Gallien decided to make a non-speaking presentation – instead, he played a video showing examples of cities across the EU that had accomplished the task of converting the basic identity of a region into a brand . All the cities presented had managed to successfully address the

challenge of promoting themselves as marketing products on the world stage . Mr . Gallien explained that the regions he had selected had been very successful in increasing their awareness both in their own country and around the globe . In his comments, he stressed the fact that success stories should be better highlighted to speed up projects all over Europe . Mr . Gallien reminded everybody about the multiple benefits linked to regional marketing: generating wealth and bringing in new activities, talents and, crucially, investment that boosted the local economy .

sophie louet shared her experiences of launching the brand of Lyon, which was the first city in France to begin regional marketing in 2008 . She described the process of bringing together the metropolitan area's main economic players and institutions in order to create

a joint regional marketing policy . Through their activities, they promoted Lyon's economy, and the idea was that they could spread the word about the region throughout France and around the world . These actions resulted in the creation of a network of over 5,000 ambassadors who were recruited from among the region's leading organisations and who identified numerous opportunities for the metropolitan area (establishing businesses, attracting investment or organising projects) . Ms . Louet stressed the importance of maintaining strong relations with the press . In spite of a small budget, about 100 journalists were invited each year by the City of Lyon to cover topics as diverse as the economy, culture, major projects and gastronomy . In her final remarks, she emphasized that getting both private and public partners involved was crucial for regional marketing and had a determining influence on its success .

Moderated by Mark Watts, Director of Luther Pendragon's Brussels Office, this workshop included contributions from the following speakers: Hans Dominicus, Director for Marketing & Development at the Amsterdam Tourism and Convention Board, The Netherlands, sophie louet, Communication and Marketing Director of ADERLY, Lyon, France, Jean Dagré, Founder and Director of Agence Dagré Communication, Strasbourg, France and Jean-Christophe Gallien, Consultant at JCGA, Paris, France .

Parallel workshops: 13 October 2010, 14:30-15:45 - Regional marketing: Creating a brand strategy


Hans Dominicus presented the steps, which had been taken to build the strong international brand of Amsterdam, one of the world's top ten tourism destinations . He argued that it was crucial to set up an informal discussion platform including both ordinary citizens and politicians . He added

that although money was an important factor in determining the feasibility of projects, so were pro-active politicians . He named trust, consensus and commitment as key elements for the creation of competitive brands . Mr . Dominicus described the marketing strategy of '17 reasons why you should go to Amsterdam' and stressed the importance of tourism, claiming that a tourist was the best ambassador for a city in terms of communication, since he talked more about his trip than a businessman and was therefore capable of ensuring its long-term promotion .

Jean Dagré gave a presentation on the emergence of the Upper-Rhine Valley as a new tourist destination, which grouped together four regions from three different countries: France, Germany and Switzerland . He noted that creating a tourist destination involved building a strong brand around

the region in question . He emphasized the importance of joint projects at trans-national level, which linked the regions with one another and helped give them a strong identity . Mr . Dagré noted that the involvement of citizens was crucial and that they greatly contributed to the creation of a brand; however, they needed to have 'ownership' of the project . He concluded by stating that the main goal of regional marketing was to make sure that a brand was strong enough to survive without EU funding . The presentations were followed by a debate with the audience and the subjects highlighted included: getting the local population involved in brand creation, the economic dimension of regional marketing and the link between marketing and politics .

In their responses, the moderator and the panellists agreed that:

Regional marketing required working in a trans-national context: communication with an international scope should be a priority; however, the subsequent involvement of the local population was crucial for its long-term success . One positive 'side-effect' of regional marketing was that it improved the image that inhabitants had of themselves and made them proud of their city .

Translating a region into a strong brand also represented an economic project: a brand was created for business purposes to bring prosperity to the region and to attract investment .

While attracting tourism should not be the main purpose of regional marketing, all speakers noted that it remained a major area of future employment in Europe, as it was one of the few branches of the economy that could not simply be transferred to a country with lower labour costs . Therefore, brand creation should include campaigns focusing exclusively on presenting a region as a great tourism destination .

The cross-promotion of various cities within a region was considered to be a bad idea . The panellists noted that promoting a 'quadruple' of cities was very difficult, as having too many brands in one project inevitably led to confusion . The key to successful regional marketing was to build a strong and coherent brand .

The link between politics and marketing should not be ignored . Using elected representatives and the mayors was very important, as their involvement in the city branding process increased the credibility and prestige of the project . The speakers noted that while it was possible to develop a brand without political support, political vision was always essential .

Parallel workshops: 13 October 2010, 14:30-15:45 - Regional marketing: Creating a brand strategy



linking public sector communication professionals across Europe

The debate highlighted the need for networking among public sector communication professionals across Europe because they share common values and face similar challenges . Using a survey on the profile of public sector communicators in Europe presented by Dominique Mégard,

discussions focused on how to get a European network up and running . As regards key qualifications and attitudes of communication directors, Ms . Mégard underlined the need for a strategic view, connectivity, political sensitiveness, awareness of the local situation, and communication expertise and efficiency .

Pierre Zémor elaborated on common challenges for public sector communication, namely to avoid disconnecting public policy and action from communication, to avoid too much proximity with politicians, to focus on consumers needs, and to not compete with media .

Karl Musschoot presented the situation as regards public sector communication in Flanders including its embeddednes into the public administration stipulating the manner in which communication issues are executed by specialised official at all levels of government .

Jacques Moisse insisted on the fact that public sector communication is operating in a permanently changing environment and hence, remained a subject and profession to be still further developed .

The workshop was chaired by Professor stefano rolando, University of Milan, and President of the Club of Venice, and involved the following panellists: Karl Musschoot, Director of Communication, Flemish Government, Belgium; Jacques Moisse, Director of Communication, Public Service of Wallonia, Belgium; Dr lieve Fransen, Director, Directorate-General for Communication, European Commission; Angel losada, Association of Communication Directors, Spain; Pierre Zémor, President of the European Federation of Public Communication Associations (feacp); and Ian ratcliff, Vice Chairman, Local Government Communications, United Kingdom . Dominique Mégard, Manager at Cap’Com, Lyon, France, commented as expert to the debate .


Parallel workshops: 13 October 2010, 16:15-17:30 -

Linking public sector communication professionals across Europe

In his contribution Angel losada emphasised that communication should be cross-cutting activity involving all officials in public administrations . The latter should take care of the necessary procedures and trainings including on internal communication . In thsi context, the work of

communication consultants should be clearly defined .

Ian ratcliff confronted reactive communication with one linked to public decision-making and suggested a strategic and forward-looking approach to all public sector communication .

Dr lieve Fransen elaborated on how much the last years had changed the communication made by EU institutions namely as regards reaching out to the citizens and connecting Europe to the local level . The latter remains an issue to be tackled for the years to come .As regards the latter

aspect, the European Commission should continue to play an important role through its networks and tools .

In their conclusions, the panellists highlighted

the need to continue cooperation and networking at European level;

the necessity to better involve actors of civil society organisations;

the potential of public sector communication to initiate and complement societal change .


sustainability and communication

roser Domenech opened the workshop by highlighting the importance of sustainability and credibility for a brand . Ms . Domenech noted that sustainability covered many elements; sustainable development was a key issue in this world and an EU priority; communications therefore, should set an example in terms of both their form

and their content . Ms . Domenech invited the speakers to share their knowledge on how public sector communication campaigns had tackled the issue of sustainability .

Diana Verde Nieto began her presentation by pointing out that, as far as sustainable communication was concerned, quality of life was a priority, which meant that we had to look at it very closely . In a changing world, it was sustainability and not income that was a core value; moreover, GNP

monitoring was being replaced by measuring how happy and productive the nation was . Ms . Verde stated that people tended to choose brands, which resonated with their own values; we therefore needed to make a shift towards purpose driven marketing . She noted that while communication was about 'everything', marketing was about engagement: instead of selling, we should think about enabling and empowering people; instead of campaigning, we should rather seek to move them . Ms . Verde recalled the tremendous impact, which

convergence had on public communications and noted that the mobile phone was steadily taking over the internet's role in the converging world . The reach of social networking and blogging was growing at twice the rate of other mainstream forms of internet use such as portals, e-mail and search engines . This had to be taken into account by governments and public institutions which should make sensible use of social media as a tool for connecting with the citizens and spreading their message . Ms . Verde finished by noting that social and web networks were the future of communication . Reactivity was the main weapon, which both companies and public institutions needed to learn to use . Their very reputation would be increasingly dependent on them .

Dr Britta Kastens presented the communication campaign promoting Hamburg as the European Green Capital 2011 . Combining industrial tradition and a modern metropolitan atmosphere with the completion of a number of specific green projects had helped achieve a number of

ambitious environmental and development goals for the city . These efforts had resulted in boosting Hamburg's potential as a role model and communicator and had launched a dialogue with the citizens regarding the future of their city . Dr Kastens noted that as over 80% of Europeans lived in cities, they had a huge impact on maintaining a sustainable society . It was the cities that had the greatest potential to

Moderated by roser Domenech, Deputy Head of Unit at the Directorate General for Communication at the European Commission, the workshop featured presentations from the following speakers: Diana Verde Nieto, Founder of Clownfish, London, United Kingdom, Dr. Britta Kastens, Head of Communications, European Green Capital 2011, City of Hamburg, Germany, and Pedro Ballesteros torres, Principal Administrator, Covenant of Mayors, DG Energy, European Commission .

Parallel workshops: 13 October 2010, 16:15-17:30 - Sustainability and communication


solve Europe's challenges in the area of environmental and climate protection . Asked how Hamburg planned to maintain sustainable communication, Dr Kastens listed the modern and interactive exhibitions travelling through 18 European cities, the process of disseminating European experiences and best practices and the use of an approach which targeted the public at large as crucial elements of the strategy . She stressed that consulting citizens on their expectations and visions of the city as well as providing them with accurate information created involvement and set up a platform for sustainable communication .

Pedro Ballesteros torres based his presentation on the success story of the Covenant of Mayors, an alliance created to communicate solutions in the area of climate change . The Covenant of Mayors had set up a Sustainable Energy Action Plan scheme and implemented it in order to go

beyond the EU's 20% CO2 reduction objective by 2020 . Mr . Ballesteros emphasized how crucial it was to involve citizens through a bottom-up, holistic approach in order to ensure the sustainability of the project . He stressed that although the Covenant of Mayors was providing the initiative with European visibility, it was nonetheless a non-profit organisation since the alliance's member cities needed to spend a lot of money and effort on drafting public action plans, which were subject to scrutiny and implementation . He noted that the Covenant of Mayors provided support to local and regional authorities and encouraged grass roots movements among the population . Mr Ballesteros pointed to shared efforts, ideas and products regarding the quality of life in the broadest sense as being the main facilitators of sustainable communication . In his final remarks he expressed satisfaction at the alliance's huge public impact, something which had been achieved thanks to a long-term vision, the creation of a strong sense of identity among participants and by empowering them to engage in change .

The following debate addressed the issue of the social media as the ultimate tool of dialogue with the public . Ms. Domenech stated that the new communication methods were a huge challenge for sustainability and credibility and invited both the audience and the speakers to share their knowledge and ideas .

The panellists agreed on the following points:

Sustainability and credibility were key to successful communication; they should be embedded in every aspect of the dialogue with the public, consistency was more vital than ever before . There was a high risk of being accused of ‘greenwashing’ as the public could easily check any information .

Events-based communication was not always sustainable; it should only represent a small part of a broader strategy, aimed at promotion and increased visibility .

We needed to focus on the projects that could be replicated and that had a European dimension; it was utility, not perfect management, which counted .

The social media were the key to communication but one should be aware of their drawbacks, primarily the lack of control over internet sources . Therefore, to achieve sustainable communication, regulations needed to be adapted .

Moderation and sensibility were of crucial importance . Projects that had an adverse impact on people's lives would never achieve the objective of sustainability .

Parallel workshops: 13 October 2010, 16:15-17:30 - Sustainability and communication


Getting people behind a project

Christian de la Guéronnière opened the debate by highlighting the importance of continuously increasing citizen involvement in projects, local consultations and public participation . He explained that communication was a key concept for implementing and achieving vital objectives as it urged the public to participate,

informed them about what was going on, and aimed to encourage people to discuss problems, as well as to educate and explain various issues to the general public . However, the fact that local communication in general did not yet cover a large number of citizens represented something of a challenge in his opinion .

Elke löffler presented the ‘Arnstein Ladder of Participation’ indicating different levels of citizen partcipation and invited the audience to identify, which category they felt they fell under according to the scheme . This was then used as a basis for the following debate .

lieve De Brabandere introduced the ‘Flanders in Action Pact 2020’, a participative approach aimed at helping develop Flanders economically and to make it a sustainable community . The guidelines and tools for the project were developed at consultative meetings and roundtables

bringing together both target groups and stakeholders as the campaign aimed to raise awareness and encourage individual citizens to share their opinions . It was a mobilisation campaign using the general public as representatives and ambassadors for the project while at the same time trying to reach out to a wider audience based on classic and new media including radio broadcasting, mailing and online activities such as facebook, twitter and other networks . The goal was to create a broad and sweeping plan to spread awareness and involve young people in particular through interactivity .

tamás szalay presented the ‘European Capital of Culture’ project and introduced the City of Pécs, Hungary, which had held this title in 2010 . It represented a development opportunity for the city and its region and information points had been set up to ensure that the whole

This workshop was moderated by Christian de la Guéronnière, Director of IDcommunes from Paris, France, and the expert was Elke löffler, Chief Executive of Governance International from Birmingham, United Kingdom . The speakers were Peter lindvald-Nielsen, Head of Communication, European Economic and Social Committee, sophie Beernaerts, Head of Unit, Citizens' Policy, DG Communication at the European Commission, Bjorn Kjellstrom, Head of the Information Office of the European Parliament in Stockholm, Sweden, Catherine van Eeckhaute, Deputy Director of Gov2u, Fernando Monar, Director General for Services Quality, Government of the Balearic Islands, Spain, lieve De Brabandere, Communications Advisor to the Flemish Government, Belgium and tamás szalay, Cultural Director at the Pécs 2010 Management Centre, Pécs, Hungary .

Parallel workshops: 13 October 2010, 16:15-17:30 - Getting people behind a project


country was involved . He underlined that Pécs could be seen as a borderless city which was home to several minorities . Therefore, the city's cultural melting pot needed to be shown and made visible in Europe using the two year budget of 6 million euros . He particularly stressed the fact that the project was not only a festival and cultural activity but also an opportunity for developing citizen participation from all sections of society . He emphasised that there had been a lot of interest from the European print media and that internet platforms such as facebook and websites had been used to draw attention to the various events . He concluded by stating that new media were useful for participation and as a means of communication as they provided a good platform for regions and cities to collect feedback, made it possible to send videos and photos, and also enabled citizen participation, something, which also fostered democracy .

Peter lindvald-Nielsen gave an overview of the European Economic and Social Committee's project entitled ‘Your Europe-Your Say’ . This project had offered a model plenary session on specific subjects such as alcohol abuse, which engaged members, while at the same time reaching out to

young people as a specific target audience . He stressed the importance of using different ways to grab the public's attention and concluded that the project had attracted the interest – and ensured the presence – of the local media in the Member States . The ripples in the local media had left a lasting trace and had led to a general increase in interest in the project, partly due to the use of tools such as facebook . The Economic and Social Committee was planning to continue with the project in 2011 .

sophie Beernaerts introduced the communications aspects of the ‘Europe for Citizens’ programme, which has a budget of 215 million euros between 2007 and 2013 . The main aims of the programme were result-based awareness raising, getting people together to reflect and debate

on Europe, creating visibility on Europe and the EU within the Member States and beyond, as well as remembering the past and preparing for the future . These goals could be achieved by communicating at all levels about the projects and by clearly structuring them . The challenges involved included successfully implementing the programme by 2013, publicizing and raising the profile of projects, adapting to new needs from 2014 to 2020, as well as receiving necessary feedback . She concluded by pointing out that consultation of citizens during the pilot phase, as well as networking needed to be improved to interpret feedback more effectively and make the necessary adjustments .

Catherine van Eeckhaute gave an overview of ‘U@Marenostrum’, a project by a non-governmental organisation addressing public participation for water protection and management in Europe and emerging democracies . As the environment and water were key issues at any governance level,

the use of E- participation in environmental decision making and policy implementation helped reach all levels concerned, local, regional, national and international . She highlighted the need to fully harness the potential of technology in communication to achieve participation in order to inform people, educate them, monitor, visualise, interact and conduct feedback . Communication increased the level of participation and helped ensure coherence with the related initiatives . Therefore, there was a need for a dissemination strategy,, which successfully combined traditional marketing media and an on-line presence .



Fernando Monar gave an assessment of the ‘Forum of Citizenry’ project in the Balearic Islands that had been founded on the basis of the principle of transparent democracy and which sought to increase participation, listen to citizens' views on various issues and to assess the policies and

quality of public services . The forum, which was made up of 75 members, carried out a biannual opinion poll . It had made an important contribution to the policies of integrity, consumers’ concerns, and was currently examining the issue of early school leavers, using among others the internet as a platform and tool for communication . The main challenge was getting people involved and keeping them interested in a voluntary commitment, which was highly specific and not related to their personal everyday concerns .

Bjorn Kjellstrom presented a project on the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy . This was a policy issue that actively involved and concerned the citizens . As for how we could encourage people to get involved in various projects, he stated that both the role of the local media in the

region and the organisation of after work debates by citizens, which represented a direct form of dialogue, was capable of increasing participation and getting people behind different projects . Even though he concluded that it was too early to see the results of the project, it was most likely that the traditional forms of media communication would be the main tools used to reach the general public concerned, including farmers, consumers and environmental organizations .


In his final comments, Christian de la Guéronnière pointed out that networks and small scale meetings were the way forward for encouraging participation . Citizens could get involved by using online questionnaires, but evaluations needed to be followed up and participation needed to be increased further still through the use of networking .

Elke löffler closed the session by stating that there was plenty of diversity in terms of participation experiences across the various sectors and levels of government . As participation was increasing in general, the challenge was not to increase the quantity but rather the quality of the consultations . Ms . Löffler highlighted the need to ‘enable government to work with people to help them improve their quality of life’ .

The general conclusions were that

Citizens needed to be involved in issues that they were interested in, rather than issues that were of interest to the institutions .

Citizen engagement would make a major difference and would not just lead to marginal changes .

Information needed to be provided using accessible language .

Going local and collaborating most closely with the citizens who know most about the issues at stake .



Europe going local

This workshop reviewed some of the lessons learnt from cooperation between local authorities, national governments and the EU institutions . The moderator, Hans Brunmayr, opened the session by stressing the importance of ‘going local’ when communicating about Europe . Reaching out

to the local level was the key to successful communication . Mr Brunmayr then introduced the speakers and invited them to share their experiences on communication projects aimed at the European public .

Miguel Ángel Pérez highlighted the need to strengthen the link between the media and local administrations . It was important to redesign the EU message and to channel it more effectively to the local media, which was a key interface for EU citizens . Mr Pérez then presented a number of specific

ongoing projects in Murcia such as an educational game for schools and a project entitled www .DebateJoven .eu which was supported by Europe Direct . These projects aimed to reach out to young people in Spain with a European message . In his conclusions, Mr Pérez noted that the Europe Direct Network, as well as networking between the media in general, needed to

Moderated by Hans Brunmayr, Honorary Vice-President of the Club of Venice, this workshop saw contributions from the following speakers: Miguel Ángel Pérez, Director of Communication of the Region of Murcia, Spain, Katrin ruhrmann, Director for Information Offices at the European Parliament, Wolfgang Petzold, Head of Unit at the Committee of the Regions, Mihela Zupančič, Head of the European Commission Representation in Ljubljana, Slovenia, and laurent riéra, Director of Communication at Evry Centre, Essonne agglomeration, France . The workshop's experts were Marcel Kopmels of European Service Network (ESN), Brussels, Belgium, and linda Jakobsone, Associated Researcher at Centre for Public Policy PROVIDUS, Latvia .

be reinforced . He also noted that better coordination and more coherence among EU communication strategies would also be welcome .

Katrin ruhrmann began by noting that the European Parliament (EP) worked closely with the EU Information Offices and with all the European capitals in matters of communication . The EP organised a number of large information campaigns, conferences and events each year, which were both

formal and informal in nature . Ms Ruhrmann stressed the need to involve all stakeholders in communication campaigns and to make more effective use of new media . Furthermore, as the MEPs were involved in EP activities, they could be considered to constitute important contact points for the general public, which was, in turn, able to influence EU policy making through the EP . Ms Ruhrmann also encouraged the use of ‘multipliers’ in the context of communication, referring to influential persons who shared information and were able to effectively disseminate it further .


Wolfgang Petzold presented the OPEN DAYS, the European Week of Regions and Cities . Co-organised by the Committee of the Regions and the European Commission's Directorate-General for Regional Policy, this annual event brought together over 6,000 participants, experts and journalists

for discussions on the theme of regional policy . Mr Petzold explained that the event had originally focused on the interest and expertise of Europe's local and regional authorities in implementing EU Cohesion Policy . It continued to involve more than 240 regions and cities in discussions on EU funding, projects and good practice . Since 2006, in addition to the Brussels-based workshops and events, decentralized events under the title ‘Europe in my region/city’ had been organised across Europe – more than 260 in 2010 in 35 countries involving an audience of about 25,000 citizens - covering numerous EU policy issues related themes close to local interests . These events were widely covered by the local media . Mr Petzold noted that the OPEN DAYS series had become a European brand – with local ownership . It had proven to be successful in communicating on Europe, as it had a central message, but used many different approaches to communicate it, both in Brussels and at local and regional level .

Mihela Zupančič shared her experiences of reaching out to specific target audiences in her case study of the Schengen Area Enlargement in Slovenia . The standard EU communication message had proven to be completely at odds with the local experience, as local people were upset and even disrupted by the new Schengen border . However, using two-way communication with the local mayors, municipalities and other opinion shapers, it had been possible to mitigate this conflict effectively . Consequently, it was important to find ways to close the communication gap between the institutions and the general public, by targeting the message and respecting the citizens . It was also important to communicate effectively on

the added value of EU policies . In her final remarks Ms Zupančič emphasized the need to reflect on how the issue of Brussels-imposed policies versus the inclusive two-way communication method could be addressed more effectively .

laurent riéra presented a local newspaper, ‘Le Petit Quentin’, which issued a special edition in cooperation with the European Commission, as a means of informing the population of Saint Quentin about European issues . This publication presented practical information, such as information on the European insurance card and the 112 emergency number, along with articles on EU policies, such as the use of structural funds in the region, in an accessible way . Mr Riéra stressed the importance of engaging the municipalities and other regional authorities in communicating the EU's messages . More should be written about EU issues that were important to the general public and close to their daily lives, in a language that was easy to understand . Mr Riéra concluded by encouraging the EU Institutions to support these types of communication projects, for example by providing information, statistics and interviews with VIPs, to make it easier for the local press to communicate on Europe .

The moderator then invited the experts to comment . Marcel Kopmels stressed the fact that if we wanted to be more effective, it was important to bear in mind that the larger the public, the simpler the message had to be . A simplified and emotional message would be better received than a complex

rational message . Furthermore, public institutions should send out specific messages tailored to different audiences . Attention should be paid to the social media, and to the complexity of the issue of control vs . influence, especially where the new media were concerned . All these issues represented enormous challenges for public communicators .

Parallel workshops: 14 October 2010, 09:30-10:45 - Europe going local


linda Jakobsone stated that information should be linked to issues that people wanted to know more about, such as raising standards of living as well as issues of relevance to local on-going debates . Moreover, it was important to reflect on what means of communication were used, and to find the most efficient way of communicating, be it via traditional or new media . Ms Jakobsone also stressed the effect of multipliers and influential persons, who could play an important role in disseminating information further, sometimes in unexpected ways .

Once again, the discussions had demonstrated that the best way of influencing public opinion was through the use of tailor-made messages, which took into account target groups and the reality on the ground . The workshop ended with a number of questions from the audience .

In short, the following issues were discussed:

How the EU institutions – and other public institutions – could implement two-way communication with a wider audience, and make better use of their feedback .

How the public institutions could make sure the messages they wanted to share were understood in the way they had intended .

How, for example, the existing Europe Direct Network could be made more efficient

Was it possible to envisage the adoption of a joint communication strategy for all the EU institutions?

Parallel workshops: 14 October 2010, 09:30-10:45 - Europe going local


Communicating with the media

Olivier Alsteens introduced the panel and opened the debate by addressing a concrete issue from the perspective of institutional communication and its media impact . The question concerned a recent visit by European Commission President José Manuel Barroso to Hungary and

the media coverage of this event . Pia Ahrenkilde Hansen confirmed that it had attracted media interest, especially with regard to the industrial disaster and that the media had wanted to know how Europe could help .

Mr. Alsteens wondered whether or not the Commission had intended to bring Mr Barroso to the Danube to the place where the accident had actually occurred . Ms . Hansen explained that the Commission's objective with this visit had been to explore how help could be provided and what needed to be done most urgently . The answer had been to send experts to work on the ground and to show support for the EU's Hungarian partners . In the subsequent debate, however, the panellists repeatedly stressed that taking Mr Barroso to the Danube would have generated much more media interest .

Jaume Duch Guillot was given the floor to explain how the European Parliament worked with the media to draw as much attention as possible to its work . He stressed that many things happened in the EP that were of interest to reporters and that it was important to coordinate and structure the

information accordingly . Reporting about institutional issues was done by the press service but information was also issued by the political groups etc . Mr . Duch Guillot outlined the importance of helping journalists to find their topic . If there was information about a particular Member State, it was always helpful to get in touch directly with its media .

Erik Hansen was asked to present what the City of Oslo did to generate media interest . It was very important to communicate continuously with the media on a daily basis but it was also necessary to correct mistakes made by the media . The City of Oslo organised a special event for journalists

each autumn to make them more familiar with the various aspects of its work . As regards correcting errors, the City always contacted the editor of the publication directly to ask that the necessary correction be made .

This panel discussion was moderated by Olivier Alsteens, Director-General for External Communication in the Belgian Federal Government . The panellists were Christophe Midol-Monnet, Chief Editor of European Affairs at Euronews, Jaume Duch Guillot, Director of Media and Spokesperson of the European Parliament, Erik Hansen, Director of Communication for the City of Oslo, Norway, Grigore Virsta, Europe Affairs Editor at Romanian Public television, Pia Ahrenkilde Hansen, Chief Spokesperson of the European Commission and Professor Paul statham, Director of Research at the School of Sociology, Politics and International Studies, University of Bristol, United Kingdom .

Parallel workshops: 14 October 2010, 09:30-10:45 - Communicating with the media


Ms. Hansen confirmed that the Commission also tried to correct mistakes, where necessary . The topics were often quite technical . This was also dependent on the availability of resources . Mr. Duch Guillot said that the European Parliament's main task was not to correct what had been

reported incorrectly but rather to communicate the substance of its policies, the soul of the story .

Paul statham was asked to comment on the discussion . He mentioned that, based on a number of studies that had been carried out on the subject, it seemed that there was an extremely low public demand for reporting on EU issues . That is why it was very important that the EU institutions tried to

communicate in a way that was as easy to understand as possible . It was necessary to always bear in mind which section of the public would be targeted . Many journalists confirmed that if they were given lengthy reports, they would not report on them . Ms Hansen disagreed with Mr Statham on his point about reporting on elite politics, which had nothing to do with people's everyday lives . Many EU decisions had a very direct impact on peoples’ lives . She also stressed that providing information on European issues should also be the responsibility of the Member States and that this job was often not done properly .

The moderator then changed the focus to the issue of how we could get the local media involved . As Europe was often considered to be remote, could using local media, which knew their local audience better, be a good way of reaching the local public? How could the messages be decentralised?

There was a comment from the floor (spokesperson from the office of the European Ombudsman) who noted that very often when institutions tried to go local, they were redirected to the EU correspondent . Journalists in the local media often

considered EU topics to be too complex to be reported at their level .

Grigore Vista confirmed that going local was important . Romanian public television broadcast a weekly programme focusing on EU issues but decentralised regional

TV stations were also in place to report news, for example to cover the Danube tragedy . It was also important to make the EU news more ‘digestible’ and more attractive for the general public .

Mr Duch Guillot outlined the importance of providing training for journalists from the Member States and inviting radio and TV journalists to broadcast in Brussels; the EU had local offices in large cities in Member States yet the local press often simply relied on the press agencies for their information .

Ms Hansen confirmed that the local offices tried to work with the local press as well . Nowadays there were more resources for covering the local media . She affirmed that the local media were often reluctant because journalists based in Brussels had more expertise to write about EU affaires .

Mr Alsteens asked if the Commission was giving any thought to how a new project could be presented? Ms Hansen explained that a dialogue took place between the communicators and the experts from the DG in question and that the result was then reported back to the local offices .

Mr statham underlined that it was important to provide the media with information about topics such as globalisation which had direct consequences for peoples’ lives . People often had the impression that a lot went on behind closed doors . People did not understand complicated procedures such as the Constitution; the media had to translate such issues for the ordinary public .



Mr Duch Guillot pointed out that not all of the responsibility lay with the EU institutions but that the issue of how and which topics the media communicated was also important . Another problem was that European politicians, e .g . MEPs, were not always very well known at national level . Ms Hansen said that the mission of her office was to create a debate about what the EU was actually proposing and the decisions it took . Mr Virsta was convinced that there was sufficient information available to report about different EU topics . As the editor of a public TV channel, he regularly attended events such as OPEN DAYS, Green Days etc . which were organised in Brussels . They also provided a good opportunity to conduct interviews . Members of the EP were always keen to give interviews to make themselves more visible .

In conclusion, it was pointed out that

the press had a difficult role to play in reporting on Europe since there was little apparent demand for information on the part of the general public;

the lack of a supranational media organisation did not help to convey messages;

it was necessary for national governments to acknowledge their share of the responsibility for reporting on Europe;

Europe, in reality, did not have one face but should act with one voice: this, in essence, was the real challenge for communication .



Changing behaviour

Ylva tivéus introduced the panel by raising the issue of changing people's behaviours to achieve certain aims . She noted that public authorities had both soft (communication) and hard (legislation, taxation) tools at their disposal but that it we wanted to achieve lasting

change, communication should not be viewed in isolation . Communications should be designed to complement and reinforce other interventions . Ms . Tivéus highlighted that in the space of just a few years, the task of changing people's behaviours had become a key focus for public sector communication . At this point, she invited the speakers to present examples from their own sectors: anrti-smoking, eco-citizenship, obesity and disease-prevention .

renata Špačková noted that public interest communication campaigns were usually targeted at young Europeans, as they were still prone to change . She reminded everybody that communication with a young audience was a highly competitive area, as over 60 multi-media campaigns

aimed at 15-25 year old Europeans had been organised from 2006 to the present day . Young audiences were at the heart of such major EU political and economic issues as the digital

Moderated by Ylva tivéus, Director at the Directorate-General for Communication of the European Commission, this workshop featured presentations from the following speakers: renata Špačková, International Director of Ligaris, France, Willy Haslitzer, Director of the ORF network in Carinthia, Austria, Hans-Erwin Barth, Head of Unit – External and Internal Communication at DG Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission, and Peter löffler, Head of Sector – Communication, Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation, European Commission .

Parallel workshops: 14 October 2010, 09:30-10:45 - Changing behaviour

revolution, education and employment, ecology and the fight against discrimination, road safety and public health . Based on her analysis of the campaign, Ms . Špačková named four major categories that stood out with regard to communication with young people: emotions; the search for complicity and humour; increased independence and responsibility and finally self-esteem and peer judgement . She emphasized the importance of the participative dimension, noting that young people wanted to have ownership of campaigns and to express themselves within them . In her final remarks, Ms . Špačková stressed that caution was essential regarding the style of communication which should be based on young people's genuine concerns . She expressed her firm belief in effective pan-European communication, but reminded the workshop that this would only be possible if we got young people involved, and aimed for complicity, proximity and above all - sincerity .

Hans-Erwin Barth spoke about the healthy eating campaigns, which had been developed by the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development of the European Commission: 'Drink it up' and 'The Tasty Bunch' . Both were targeted at European school children, conveying

the message that it was fun to be fit . The messages were



conveyed in a way and in a language that the kids could both understand and enjoy . To achieve this objective, a set of integrated communication tools had been developed, including a website with quizzes and photo competitions and animation events at schools . Mr Barth emphasized the role of political will as an essential element for supporting joint efforts to fight obesity . Both campaigns which he presented aimed to achieve the EU priority on balanced diet and healthy eating habits and to run alongside two schemes to provide fruit, vegetables, milk and dairy products to schools . Mr Barth stressed the importance of getting people to take ownership of the project . He gave an example of a school in Cyprus, where teachers, pupils and parents had all engaged in a whole day of activities including sport, theatre, market and discussions . He noted that supporting a campaign with significant media coverage along with the testimonial of a celebrity was always a good idea as it provided credibility, visibility and helped get the message across . Mr Barth concluded with a statement that campaigns should focus on convincing people not to take up bad habits, as breaking them was much more difficult .

Willy Haslitzer shared the experience of promoting multilingualism and the Europe-oriented approach by a regional network of ORF, the Austrian broadcasting corporation . He explained how the objective of cross-border thinking was achieved by presenting Europe ‘as an emotion that needed to be

aroused’ . ORF had been actively involved in encouraging multilingualism among the population of Carinthia for a number of years, offering Slovenian language courses in order to achieve the ambitious goal for all citizens to be at least trilingual . Mr Haslitzer stressed that focusing on the emotional aspects of communication helped to ensure a lasting change in behavior . In his conclusions, he highlighted the importance of partnership building and giving people a sense of

responsibility for the campaign . He also noted that using social networks such as Facebook ought to be used as a benchmark for communications aimed at changing behavior, as it was the major place of interaction for young Europeans .

Peter löffler spoke about the efforts to change Europe's energy landscape through the ‘Sustainable Energy Europe’ campaign . He admitted that the implementation of European policies was very difficult, as it required huge involvement from both national governments and the local

population . For this reason, the communication strategy for Sustainable Energy had set up a vast network of ambassadors who promoted the policy through their activities and political involvement . Mr . Löffler highlighted the power of the image in marketing strategies and gave examples of the artistic projects that had supported the campaign . In order to increase media coverage, the European Commission had organised a European Sustainable Energy Week, which had provided an opportunity to communicate more on the project, giving it a good focus . Mr Löffler stressed that although the media tended to be reluctant to broadcast news about European policies as they found them 'boring', they were nevertheless an ultimate channel for conveying success stories . The European Sustainable Energy Week had involved the organisation of some 80 events in Brussels along with up to 500 energy days throughout Europe, providing both information and visibility . In his final remarks, Mr Löffler noted that the European Commission needed to educate people without being too didactic, as experience showed that a patronising approach discouraged people from acting .

In the subsequent debate, the moderator and the panellists discussed the measures that could complement communication, such as the introduction of a smoking ban in public places . Ms tivéus noted that Europe began at


local level and therefore invited Harald Stranzl of the Foreign Ministry of Austria to explain how they had managed to change the attitudes of local politicians towards the European Union .

In their final remarks and conclusions, the panellists agreed on the following points:

EU news should be published/broadcast in a way that was as succinct and as easy to understand as possible, so that the media would be encouraged to pass on important messages about EU policies .

The greater participation of local partners was vital; a platform should be provided to report about their activities and explain Europe to the citizens .

Public interest campaigns should avoid a top-down attitude; it was better to approach the media and to create partnerships rather than to just force them to convey certain messages . This approach meant that the media could have both responsibility and control over content .

Story-telling was the best strategy for communicating Europe – but it would only be successful if it was both local and inspirational in nature . Peer pressure and the self-esteem of the citizens should always be taken into account by public communicators – campaigns based around these elements were particularly appealing as people generally disliked being told what to do from a patronising position .

Empowering people and giving them a sense of 'ownership' of the campaign was the best way of ensuring sustainable communication .



Closing session: 14 October 2010, 11:45-12:15

Public sector communication in Europe

Kris Peeters Minister-President of the Flemish Government, congratulated the participants on the success of the first EU public communication conference and its promising network . Communication, for public services, was important for informing people about their rights and duties as citizens, especially as each target group had its own specific needs and priorities . Contact with the public and with businesses could be maintained by using a variety of instruments such as twitter, new technologies, and tools for communicating . Attention

In his keynote speech, reijo Kemppinen, Director-General for Press, Communication, Transparency at the Council of the European Union stressed the point that people had become more infatuated with the medium of 'cyberspace' than with the message they were actually trying to get across . Communicating European institutions and informing the audience about their work could be difficult as EU citizens did not understand the message due to the inward-looking approach of the EU institutions . New forms of social media such as facebook, twitter, or youtube, could be seen as revolutionary but only if they were understood and used properly . Public texts in ‘eurospeak’ had to be made accessible for all and there was a need to differentiate between communicating the image and actions of the institutions and providing our citizens with information about the EU . He emphasised that it was time to go back to basics, to focus on what, and to discuss in which areas people might actually achieve more by working together . Context was more important than syntax and every act of communication should start with basic questions such as: Whom am I talking to? What do I want to get out of this? Why am I doing it now?

should also be given to environmentally friendly means of communication . ‘Communicating Europe’ to its citizens and communicating Europe at all levels was not only an important task, but a major challenge as well . Given that the public wanted to have more influence, there was a need for quality participation and consultation . That was why ‘Flanders in Action’ worked together with civil society and why it used a professional communication strategy . He concluded that the EuroPCom conference provided the key to unlocking potential and making a wealth of information available .

The subsequent debate was moderated by Béatrice Delvaux, Executive Editor of the Le Soir newspaper from Belgium . The panellists – Paul Statham, Research Director, School of Sociology, Politics and International Studies, University of Bristol, United Kingdom, Elke löffler, Chief Executive, Governance International, Birmingham, United Kingdom, Bridgette Wessels,

Kris Peeters Minister-President of the Flemish Government


Lecturer in Sociology, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom, linda Jakobsone, Associated Researcher, Centre for Public Policy PROVIDUS, Latvia and stefano rolando, University of Milan, Italy, and President of the Club of Venice – summed up the key messages from their workshops .

linda Jakobsone identified going local as the key message that had been learned . She stated that it was essential to trust the citizens and to ask them for their opinion on various issues as they had the best understanding of where potential problems could lie . The educational aspect was also vital as it was crucial for ensuring that EU citizens understood both the EU and its system .

Bridgette Wessels stated that social media had the potential to reach out to people but noted that there was a need for greater innovation and flexibility of tools . Institutional changes in networking were fundamental and the level of knowledge needed to be increased using social media and other forms of popular communication in communities, alongside work with trusted local authorities . Ms . Wessels concluded that raising awareness and intergenerational learning were important processes in these times of transformation .

Elke löffler referred to the workshop ‘getting people behind a project’ by stating that power had to be shared with the citizens and that target groups needed to be involved in the decision making process if people were to support government projects .

stefano rolando stated that only 35% of professional communicators said that they took part in the decision-making process within their institution . Therefore, there was a need to draw up a strategy for getting more communicators involved in the decision making process . With regard to the EU, he highlighted the importance of being creative and working with digital media communication and new technologies . Local level communication, however, was deemed to be a key factor .

Paul statham presented the key message he had learned by stating that multilevel and cross bordered decision making had become a necessity . There was a need to replace technocratic language with a communicable language . The media had to transform the message into narratives that were easy to understand .

Ms. Wessels added that the democratic process at EU level and the democratic process at local level needed to be mediated in a successful way . Ms . Jakobsone addressed the issue of proximity as she stated that although going local was important it did not solve the proximity issue that needed to be addressed . Professor statham stressed that mass communication allowed issues to become remote and that it did not therefore address proximity issues . National and local governments and their national and local media should do more to incorporate Europe as well . Mr. rolando suggested that evaluation meant working out appropriate criteria and putting things into context . Contact between institutions and citizens needed to be established by all means of communications and peripheral institutions should be in charge of the social field .

Ms. Delvaux then raised the following question: What would make public communication by the various levels of governments more European?


Bridgette Wessels Lecturer in Sociology, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom

Elke Löffler Chief Executive, Governance International, Birmingham, United Kingdom

Linda Jakobsone, Associated Researcher, Centre for Public Policy PROVIDUS, Latvia

Stefano Rolando University of Milan, Italy, and President of the Club of Venice

Paul StathamDirector of Recearch at the School of Sociology,Politics and International Studies,University of Bristol,United Kindom.


Mr. rolando argued that those who had built Europe had invented a system of relations between countries using ‘peace’ as their watchword . Later, the idea that we could look forward, reform and make changes was encapsulated by the watchword "project" . However this had ended with the Lisbon Treaty . Today there was a conflict between the EU and the member states which led to "fear" being the key word that was associated with Europe . He suggested, therefore, that the next generation needed to decide what the fourth watchword would be .


talked and communicated using peers and the media . She had therefore introduced a website for young people made by young people that got the message across . Ms . Wessels underlined that social media was just a form of communication and a tool and therefore fostering debate about values and social media merely represented part of a greater picture .

Ms Delvaux then asked the panellists about their views regarding the challenges and the next steps in the development of government communication . Professor statham focused on increasing politicisation as the growing visibility of Europe would raise the stakes for everybody . The EU motor dealt with challenges such as accessibility and visibility for attentive members of the public while also addressing crucial issues such as the financial crisis and global warming . Ms. Jakobsone raised the question of how much people in Europe really needed to know about Europe . National governments had a huge role in communicating and providing information and people needed to be shown where they could look for information themselves .

Ms. Wessels suggested a move towards partnership, democratic networks and organisational structures . It was essential to establish who was doing what and to identify who the key players and key partners were . Ms . Löffler concluded that doing communication 'with people' and not 'to people' was the right approach . Mr . Rolando mentioned that communication needed to be strategic . Therefore, politicians and decision makers needed to be put on the spot in roundtable discussions .

"It's time to go back to basics: to focus on what rather than who; to discuss where we might achieve more by working together; to focus our differences in areas where they matter; to admit that the best guarantee to achieve nothing is to try and achieve everything at once."

Reijo Kemppinen, Director-General, Press, Communication, Transparency, Council of the EU

Mr. Kemppinen asked us not to give up on 'our generation yet' and stated that for 25 years the watchword had been ‘more’ and then ‘basta’ . The word of the next generation, according to him, would be ‘well-being" . The question of social media addressed the role of public authority and the issue of who was authorized to communicate . Ms. löffler stated that young people listened,


Conclusions

Conference conclusions by the organisers and presentation of the EuroPCom platformThe conference was brought to a close by the communication directors from the three institutions, which had organised EuroPCom: laurent thieule from the Committee of the Regions, Jacques Moisse from the Public Service of Wallonia and Karl Musschoot from the Flemish Government .

Mr. thieule gave his assessment of the title ‘Communication in Europe - Communicating on Europe’ and suggested that communication about Europe should build on the communication pyramid to ensure that communication was provided at all levels . He emphasised

that communication tools and content were essential issues that had been addressed during the conference . Mr . Thieule stressed that people needed to talk about Europe in a decentralised way and that there were multiple formats and messages at stake . Decentralisation, going local and bottom up initiatives were the key messages of the conference . The goal was to make it a sustainable conference for people to share ideas, network, exchange best practices and mobilize the diverse public to get involved .

Mr. Moisse presented the joint idea of holding a conference about public sector communications during the Belgian presidency . He strengthened the need for legitimacy regarding the role of public communicators as they worked closely with the board of directors and communicated

their decisions to citizens and target audiences . Mr . Moisse stressed the importance of getting citizens involved and networking as a tool, which allowed citizens to take the EU on board . There was a need for a proactive, participatory

approach among communicators and the internet platform, EuroPCom made it possible to connect with others in addition to the annual event, providing a necessary tool for public communicators .

Mr. Musschoot presented the EuroPCom platform and the website www .europcom .net which offered an opportunity to network, to contact registered participants, to share ideas and best practices and to access information which was necessary and relevant to the

everyday work of public sector communicators .


The 1st EuroPCom conference was evaluated by its participants through an online survey held between 18 and 29 October . Out of 700+ participants, speakers and chairpersons, 177 responded (25 .3%), quite a significant turn-out compared to similar surveys . The chart below shows the conference participants by their organisational affiliation . In the survey, participants from regional and local administrations were slightly overrepresented .

Participants of the survey came from 23 countries, most of them from Belgium (64), followed by Germany (13) and France (12) . Significantly underrepresented were countries such as Poland, Spain and the UK .

Most participants answering were in the age bracket between 31 and 40 (58), followed by those between 41 and 50 (45) and 20 and 30 (31) .

Thematically, most participants favoured to continue with many of the themes discussed during the conference while issues such as social media, participatory and citizen-oriented campaigns, and examples for 'multi-level' communication were highlighted several times . In terms of methods of conference organisation, participants wished that seminars were held more in workshop style, more time was allocated to debate and networking ('world café'), and not only success stories but examples where things went wrong were presented as well .

These findings are mirrored by the ratings participants gave on their main interests: 97% found 'learning about good practice' most important, 88% referred to 'networking', 69% to 'EU institutions' communication, while 46% wanted to promote their region or city .

121 (71 .2%) participants answered that they would participate in another conference on the subject, while 43 (25 .3%) were 'not sure', and 6 (3 .5%) said they would not .

results of the online evaluation

Other17.6%

Communication agencies

14%

Regional and local

administrations26.5%

National administrations

12.9%

EU institutions 15%Civil society

organisations8%

Press4%

University2%

PROGRAMME


In partnership with

EU partners

EUROPEAN UNION


















PROGRAMME


In partnership with

EU partners

EUROPEAN UNION


















PROGRAMME


In partnership with

EU partners

EUROPEAN UNION


















PROGRAMME


In partnership with

EU partners

EUROPEAN UNION


















PROGRAMME


In partnership with

EU partners

EUROPEAN UNION


















PROGRAMME


In partnership with

EU partners

EUROPEAN UNION


















Communicating on Europe-Communicating in Europe

Seven hundred public sector communication professionals from across Europe gathered in Brussels between 12 and 14 October 2010 for the 1st European Public Communication Conference (EuroPCom) at the European Parliament and Committee of the Regions to discuss how they can work together to improve public sector communications and raise awareness about EU policies at local, regional, national and European levels of government .

Organised by the Belgian regions of Flanders and Wallonia and the Committee of the Regions, in partnership with the Belgian Federal Government, the Brussels-Capital Region and the German-speaking Community of Belgium and co-organised with the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission, the conference involved more than 90 speakers from local, regional, national and EU level . Together with academics and journalists, they presented and discussed best practices in communications over the course of ten workshops covering such issues as social networks, 'going local', and sustainable communication .

The end of the conference saw the launch of a web-based platform which can be found – together with more information about the event - at: www .europcom .net .

Presentations and videos from the conference are published at: www .cor .europa .eu/europcom

Flemish RegionVlaamse overheidDiensten voor het Algemeen RegeringsbeleidBoudewijngebouw, 6C51Boudewijnlaan 30, bus 201000 BrusselBelgiumTel .: +32 (0)2 553 59 68Fax: +32 (0)2 553 55 79www .vlaanderen .be

Walloon RegionService public de WallonieDépartement de la CommunicationPlace Joséphine Charlotte, 25100 Namur (Jambes)BelgiumTel .: +32 (0)81 321445Fax: +32 (0)81 321610www .wallonie .be

Committee of the RegionsDirectorate for Communication, Press and ProtocolRue Belliard 1011040 BrusselsBelgiumTel .: +32 (0)2 546 8202Fax: +32 (0)2 282 2085www .cor .europa .eu

Organised by

CdR8

68/1

1-20

10/E

N

europcom proceedings

Documents

communication europcom

government com communication

european associations

european institutions

public sector communications

european conferenceknowledge

directors of conference

europe communicators