Berlin Communication conference demands 'practical steps'[de] 

For an overview of the Berlin conference's workshops, see the commissioner's webpage . Several issues were addressed:

• Expectations and 'short-term versus long-term' goals;
• relevant levels of action: decentralisation (or de-concentration) versus co-ordination versus Brussels direct action;
• topics and agenda-setting: should there be few Communication priorities for the EU, or should Communication be based on multi-faceted demands at local and sectoral level;
• civil society and the media versus state structures;
• whether DG COM should be reinforced and have some of its staff decentralised to representations, and;
• charter [information and Communication rights], inter-institutional agreement or legal bases [in the next Treaty].
  

On the overall strategy, Commissioner Margot Wallström  repeated key messages from the 2006 White Paper  and announced a new action plan for Spring 2007. Taking a long-term view, she did not expect short-term results, but suggested that "it will take another 10 years". Answering questions from EurActiv on the run-up to the European elections in two years, she talked of working with the Parliament, involving member states and "talking to youth", but did not seem ready to reveal any bold measures from her upcoming 'Action Plan'.  

Many speakers pointed to the 'Brussels blame game' as being one of the contributory factors to bad EU Communication and called for stronger political will from national and local politicians. Experts claimed that this was first suggested ten or 20 years ago – when the EU was not yet in an institutional crisis – and that public support has always been the Achilles' heel of EU integration. 

Regarding the relevant level of debate, there was a convergence of views, but implicitly only, without many calls for overall decentralisation. 

A representative from the German SPD raised a concept that many speakers built upon: "The EU is an arena for debate, not a 'product'." The White Paper suggestion of a European Public Sphere (to encourage the growth of EU-level debates), found little support: most speakers focused on national, regional and sectoral debates, with some cross-border interconnection and co-ordination. 

Many speakers focused on regional and local Communication, emphasising the importance of reponding to citizens' questions and better informing regional journalists.  

The need for decentralisation was strongly espoused by most participants, but there was little explicit questioning of the public organisations currently in place. In the EU system, dominated by Brussels institutions and member states, 'decentralisation' often means empowering one ministry in each capital, as opposed to 'de-concentrating' central resources to numerous networked offices, and going all the way to media agenda-setting by regional, local and civil society organisations.  

Regarding agenda-setting and priorities, participants sought stronger co-ordination and information and called for national and local agendas.  www.touteleurope.fr  Administrator Jean Yves Nicolas,  presently engaged in preparing the next French Presidency's PR, called both for "taking a national angle, starting with citizen concerns" and also a "better ability to forecast and anticipate from [Commission] directorates-general". German former MEP Markus Löning, now Bundestag FDP MP and European Union Affairs spokesman, expressed mistrust in efforts to synchronise Communication across countries, "as this would not be democracy-based".

On the Commission's 2006 Communication priorities, Commissioner Wallström said: "Every DG wants its topic included, it's like a Christmas tree!" She added that Communication would be much more focused in 2008, notably on energy and climate-change issues.

Management partnerships between DG COM and national ministries for communicating Europe were officially hailed as a great tool for co-operation, matching the German Presidency's motto for the EU's 50th anniversary: 'Together since 1957'.  

Discreetly, dissenting commentators wondered if the time to discuss the agreements was worth the effort and if money allocated by the Commission was not reducing the national spending by a similar amount, as opposed to funding incremental actions. A Hungarian NGO called for matching funds from the member state in such cases.

Moving away from government implementation, Germany’s State Secretary for Europe Günter Gloser, insisted on the importance of informing regional media and on 'activating civil society'. He cited as examples the  European Movement  and  Europa Union ,  AktionEuropa.de  (the civil-society pendant for the official EU Presidency website and a 50th anniversary tour of 50 cities), and the Round Table On EU Communication, an informal gathering of relevant EU actors. 

Regarding the Commission's own organisation and human resources, DG Communication Director-General Claus Sörensen stated: "It's not a question of the number of bureaucrats [in my DG], but of internal co-ordination [between DGs]."

Other experts, including some close to Commission Representations in the capitals, felt that these offices are short of resources, missing spokespeople for key sectors and overburdened by Brussels-oriented procedures. Asked by EurActiv about posting attachés from sector-specific DGs in the Representations (led by DG COM), Sörensen answered: "I would like to have some people delegated from DG AGRI to the countries." He elaborated: "I also need to keep enough central resources."

On the Charter/Treaty/Programme question, Workshop 4 echoed critical stances on another legal document, but did not manage to make a clear recommendation. Rapporteur Richard Upson  from  ECAS  called for a legislative approach, binding all institutions and member states, towards a multi-annual programme, based on existing Articles 308 and 151. At the same time, he called for a stocktaking exercise regarding civil society and a Charter of Information and Communication Rights, while not excluding a Constitutional amendment in the long term, and building on the European Convention on Human Rights.