Sharing INTERREG experiences
Sharing INTERREG experiences
Download this Workshop Fact Sheet (application/pdf, 114KB)
| Title | INTERACT Seminar on Communication Plan and Tools for Cross-border Programmes |
| Venue | Auberge de Castille, Office of the Prime Minister, La Valletta, Malta |
| Date | 31 May 2007 |
| Outline |
Summary
35 participants from INTERREG IIIA, IIIC programmes and the European Commission met on the occasion of this first INTERACT Seminar on Communication for Cross-Border Programmes. The main objective of the Seminar was to discuss and exchange experiences on the preparation of the Communication Plan and actions for the new European Territorial Cooperation Cross-border Programmes. The following summary presents specific elements stressed during the presentations, Q/A and Workshop sessions. 1) General on the Communication Plan The Communication Plan: Ulla Ropponen: Communication is expected to be given more importance in the programmes in the new period, therefore the communication plans should be carefully developed and implemented. It is however difficult to say how detailed the plan should be, as it should cover a long period of 8- 9 years. The Monitoring Committee is not formally requested to approve the Communication Plan but it is considered a good practice to inform and involve the MSC in the Communication Plan and measures. The Commission only has to be informed in case of changes to the Communication Plan but no formal approval is needed. Applicable Regulations: Regulation (EC) 1159/2000 is being replaced by Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006 and therefore will not apply anymore under the 2007-13 period. 2) Monitoring of Communication Evaluation of the communication activities: Ulla Ropponen: the 2010 evaluation process is expected to be performed by an external evaluator but no detailed information/recommendation is available yet. Indicators: - Commission: there is no requirement to establish a list of indicators in the Communication Plan. But it is recommended to develop a set of indicators, to be used by the programme and the projects and to be reported on. The set of indicators can be updated if needed (it is easier to update the Communication Plan than the Operational Programme). - Participants input: Indicators should be simple, measurable and of direct use by the projects. One should differentiate between qualitative and quantitative indicators. Quality is usually difficult to measure - feedback exercises appear as an appropriate tool (questionnaires, evaluation forms etc). Some programmes however have chosen not to use quality indicators. Projects should also use a simple set of indicators to report on their communication activities, and the project and programme activities should both be counted when assessing the general communication results and outputs. Each indicator must be associated to a target - in order to be able to measure the level of achievement. Targets can be adapted if they appear to be too high or too low as compared to the outputs. Examples of some output indicators developed during the workshop sessions: - General indicators to assess the visibility of the programme among potential applicants: No. of project applications submitted (sub-indicators can also be developed, e.g. No. of applications per region, per type of target beneficiaries, per priority, etc.), this will be used to assess the success of communication towards project applicants and adapt if necessary. - Indicators about the quality of project applications: No. of project applications approved. Here however a low rate may be related e.g. to the limited funds available or to the selection procedures of the programme. A low rate may however indicate that information and support to applicants needs to be reviewed. - Public awareness of the programme: the most common indicators mentioned concern the amount of hits on the programme website, the number of participants at annual events (compared to the number of invitees), the number of articles published in the media, the awareness of the programme on the Internet (use of Google alerts: www.google.com/alerts) etc. See also document "Set of indicators" below 3) The Objectives Various objectives were added to the list of objectives presented in the PPT "Workshop session general presentation" (see below): - Consolidate and build on existing experiences - Foster a positive image of the EU in non-EU Member countries 4) The message Logo: the question was raised about the relevance of having all programmes use the same EU-wide logo, instead of each programme having its own logo. It seems that both each programme, and also each project likes to develop their own logo. A common logo could be used, but it is likely that the programmes would keep using their logo in parallel. Slogan: it is important to have a short-clear-sexy-appealing slogan for the programme. INTERREG IIIC for instance organised a communication seminar for their projects, including an exercise on developing a project slogan. INTERREG IV or European Territorial Cooperation?: some programmes have not considered the issue, while others have decided to change the name "INTERREG" to "Objective 3" and/or "European Territorial Cooperation". This change implies in some cases a change of the logo, of the programme website and slogan. Changing the programme website is not a problem as such, as one can always redirect visitors of the old website to the new one. Some programmes have also decided to keep the well-known acronym INTERREG and call the programme "INTERREG IV". For some participants, it is not necessary to specify "cross-border" in the programme name, while the word "cooperation" is key. Terminologies: the use of the same simple terminologies in all programmes but also within the European Commission is a key to success, as DG EuropeAid Co-operation Office for instance uses different terminologies or the same as DG Regional Policy but with a different meaning. INTERACT, which has already developed a glossary of INTERREG definitions in English and French, is invited to develop it further. 5) The Target groups How to deal with different target groups? It is agreed that the different target groups will be sensitive to different messages and different channels (Media, event, publications, etc), therefore each target group should be addressed specifically, by asking ourselves: "how do I reach out to the people and what message do I give in order to interest them?". Addressing each target group specifically does not mean that one should give more information to a type of applicants than to the others, but focus on the information they need most. How to address - The General Public: It is agreed that the General public is the largest but also the most diffuse target group, and therefore needs a specific approach. The most efficient way to address the public is obviously the media, but it is an expensive channel. Possible ways of addressing the media detected were: press pack sent to the media, press release, press conference, "circus tour" with the press around the region to visit projects, etc. - The Commission´s representations in the Member States: These target groups can represent interesting channels for spreading information, these usually are only located in capital cities but have shown great interest to disseminate in several Member States. 6) The programme Activities/Measures "Less is more": the message given by Andrea Schwecherl in the morning presentation is a leading thread for cross-border programmes, when time/budget/staff resources for communication are limited. The main lesson learnt was to select carefully a few objectives and a few targeted measures that are likely to have the most useful effect on the target groups. Participants agree that the Website should be given priority, as well as the annual event (which is compulsory anyway). Seminars are viewed as the most cost-efficient measures: if the venue is provided by the hosting institution, the only costs are often travel, printing of seminar material and catering. Publication of ads in the media is the most expensive type of measure. Personal contacts are viewed by most participants as the best type of activities, as they allow to set up a direct and personal link, to select the type of information needed, to clarify points etc. Launching Communication activities: EC recommendation: "do no wait until the Communication Plan is approved to start communication activities!" Website: - Programme website: the Website appears as the main source of information on the programme. Each programme should have their own website (think of Web name, to be simple), and not just a section hidden on the hosting institution´s website. - Project websites: most projects have their website, and in some programmes like IIIC it is even compulsory. In some cases though the website contains little info but represents a lot of work, so an idea could be that the programme develops a template that each project can use, and project websites would be sub-websites of the programme website. Interest the media: it is agreed that it is very important but also very difficult to interest the media in our programme, several programmes have bad experiences with journalists not attending press conferences. One needs to give a clear and simple message, focusing on concrete outputs of the programme (e.g. good projects). The message is more likely to interest the media if given by well-known decision makers of the programme - to be used as channels. Advertise the programme in the media: the ad should be simple an attractive, support by a professional PR agency is probably worth the investment. Is advertisement sufficient to raise awareness of the programme in the general public? Newsletter/E-letter: If a paper newsletter can appear as being costly, both financially and in terms of workload (drafting articles, layout, proof-reading, printing, distribution), while a E-letter can be a good solution. In the Lithuania-Poland-Russia Programme, an E-letter is produced and sent regularly to some 300 recipients, but it is a very short letter stressing the main "News" and referring to the Website for more details. Printouts: One should focus printouts on documents that are not likely to change during the programme period (e.g. Operational Programme), while making limited copies of documents such as guidelines for applicants, which are subject to adaptation during the programme period. Languages: the development of tools covering all programme languages is considered as a must in most cross-border programmes, although timely and financially costly. Events: - Annual obligatory event: think about the content of these events in advance. Think about the related workload and focus of these events (project generation, presentation of projects/programme results etc). A thematic event on measures where e.g. there are very few or few quality applications can be used as annual event. - Week of 9 May: buy a EU flag now! - Awards: Ulla Ropponen mentioned that in many programmes and projects, award ceremonies are being organised in this closing phase of the 2000-2006 programming period, to promote good projects and attract the media´s attention on these projects. 7) Support to project in communication activities It was agreed that a good practice is to develop support tools for projects, like a model of a plaque/billboard, a template for project website; training seminars etc. Training for projects on Communication: INTERREG IIIC organized such training on 2 occasions with professional trainers. This activity was costly but worth the investment, as proved the consecutive good quality of project activities. Manual on communication for projects: to include a DOs and DON’T section with clear instructions and illustrations on how to fulfil communication requirements. In a programme the "3X3 rule" was developed: 3 documents: Commission Regulation on Communication (1828/2006 for the new period) EU Guidelines on Communication Programme Manual of the Programme 3 things to do: Prepare the information and publicity plan for your project (on the basis of your application form) Carry out information and publicity activities Collect all the promotion materials (for audit) and present 1 set to INTERREG JTS 3 things to insert in project publications: EU logo Programme logo The mention of the EU cofinancing Proof-reading of project publications: in the Lithuania-Poland-Russia Programme, the Communication manager receives drafts of project publications for proof. This allows to detect missing logos, slogans etc, although it is a lot of work too. 8) Management of communication activities Costs: it is difficult to compare the costs of a measure between different countries/programmes, as cost standards differ a lot between countries. One should focus on a few priorities and communication activities, the most cost-efficient ones (having the strongest impact). It is considered as important to work with professionals e.g. for the development of material, website etc and outsource such tasks. Public procurement / outsourcing: most contracts for PR/Communication being quite limited in terms of amount, in most cases the collection of 3 offers is sufficient. As for the selection process, some countries have a system where only the cheapest offer can be chosen, while in most countries it is possible to select the offer with the best quality-price ratio (e.g. by giving 60 points to quality and 40 points to price, quality is given priority). Working with the same company for the whole programme period is often nice (they have e.g. developed the programme logo, Corporate Identity etc), the solution of framework contracts can then be envisaged. Crisis management: potential crisis (e.g. very negative article or broadcast about the programme or a project) must be anticipated and the reaction processes set up, so that a quick reaction can be given when a crisis occurs (e.g. send a quick press release or press pack). For instance the INTERACT Programme Secretariat has developed a "disseminators database" with contact details of important disseminators to be addressed in case of crisis. Audits by the Commission on communication? This is not likely to be set up but the question will be raised at the Commission. Cuts in subsidies for non-compliance with information and publicity requirements: the risk is limited in cross-border programmes, where very few projects are large infrastructure projects. Programmes (should) inform and warn their projects about the need to publicize the ERDF/INTERREG support, as in some cases "one does not know where the money comes from". Programmes (should) include a statement in the subsidy contracts, on the possible sanctions in case of non-compliance. 9) Miscellaneous Communication in ENPI programmes: current guidelines are very detailed. The ENPI Implementing Regulation has not published yet, therefore one does not know how detailed the future guidelines will be. Networking: Ulla Ropponen: each MA will have to nominate one contact person to be included in the network of communication officers developed by the Commission. This does not mean that each programme should have specific staff 100% dedicated to communication (financially impossible in most cross-border programmes anyway) but one person dealing specifically with communication. 10) Conclusion Are we ready to submit our Communication Plan? At the start of the Workshop session, many programmes considered that their Communication Plan was in the starting phase and they still had many things to do, however by the end of the day many participants found out that the plan was more advanced than originally thought! To assess if your Communication Plan is ready is complete, use the Template DG Regio/Gruppo Soges Assessment Sheets "How to assess the Communication Plan?" (see below) |