This document discusses the development of European identity and EU citizenship, as well as EU communication strategies. It notes that Eurobarometer surveys show European identity and belonging vary across countries and time. Legally, EU citizenship has developed through treaty revisions to complement national citizenship. Historically, EU communication was information from institutions to experts, but since the 1980s, rules require communication around structural funds interventions. With the fall of the Santer Commission in 1999, EU institutions opened to new symmetric communication approaches. Research focuses on a 'European public sphere'.

1. Tom De Smedt, Wolfgang Petzold
European Committee of the Regions
Territory, identity and citizenship:
communicating the EU across levels of government
Presentation for a video conference with the University of Strathclyde,
European Policies Research Centre, Glasgow
24 March 2015

2. • How have concepts of European identity and EU
citizenship developed?
• What approach does EU (institutional) communication
follow?
• What is special in communicating the EU structural
funds and EU cohesion policy?
• What do surveys, evaluations and academic literature
say in relation to the aforementioned questions?
Guiding questions

3. 1973: European Summit adopts report on European identity
1975: Commission report “Towards a European citizenship” and “Tindeman report”
including a chapter on “people’s Europe”
1977: EP resolution on “European citizenship”
1979: Commission proposes Directive on “citizens rights of residence”
1985/86: Attempts (Commission, EP) fail to bring “citizenship rights” into the
Treaties via the Single European Act
1992: The Maastricht Treaty grants all EU citizens free movement, political rights,
common diplomatic protection, and the right to petition Parliament and appeal to
the Ombudsman
1997: Treaty of Amsterdam: EU citizenship shall “complement national citizenship”
2009: Lisbon Treaty introduces “European Citizens’ Initiative”
2010, 2013: European Commission reports on citizenship
Development of EU citizenship

4. Image of the EU 2006-2014
Eurobarometer 82/2014
30
total positive neutral total negative don‘t know

5. Local vs. national vs. EU/European identity
EB 82, autumn 2014
EB 67, spring 2007

6. Who is best placed to explain the EU?
Eurobarometer 298, 2012

8. France: Voters abstention in multi-level elections
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1977
1981
1986
1989
1992
1994
1996
1998
2001
2004
2007
2009
1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009
European
Regional
National
Local
Presidential
60
40
20
Source: Wikipedia, several government websites

9. Germany: Voters abstention in multi-level elections
European
Regional*
Local*
National
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1977
1990
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
60
40
20
1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009
* Regional and local elections for Bavaria, North Rhine-Westphalia and Saxony only
Source: Wikipedia, several government websites

10. EP Research Service (2014)
EP elections turn-out
1979-2009 vs. EU member states and US congress

11. Public trust in the institutions
2004-2014
Eurobarometer 82/2014
EU National Parliament National Government

12. Feeling like a citizen of the EU?
Eurobarometer 82, 2014

13. Feeling European?
Eurobarometer 82, 2014 (European citizenship)

14. Do you know your rights as an EU citizen?
Eurobarometer 82, 2014

15. A positive image of the EU?
EU average: 39%
Eurobarometer 82/2014
23
51
24
59
37
39
34
40
38
47
38
61
37
31
31
45
50
40
41
37
30
53
42
35
42
39
38
53
39
42

16. Short history of EU communication (1)
1960s until mid 1990s
“Permissive consensus“
One-way information flow, mainly to elite audience
Communication to broader audience mainly Euro-
optimistic, linked to key moments (enlargement,
single currency, etc)

17. Short history of EU communication (2)
2004-2009
Commissioner for Communication Policy (M.
Wallström);
Several Commission Communications including
“Plan D“
Period of inter-institutional coordination
2009-2014
Period of institutional branding (Commission)
European Year of the Citizen (2013)
2014 election campaign
2014-2020: …

18. Commission Parliament
DG COMM
Reps
DG COMM
EPIO
Other EU
institutions
Institutional
communication
partners in
Member States
Comm.
agencies
Communicators
companies,
governments,
NGOs, etc.
Media

19. Council of the EU Europ. ParliamentEurop. Commission
DG COMM/spokes DG COMM IGI
37 Representations 35 EPIOs
500+ EDICs
Citizens‘ Dialogues
DGs: campaigns,
networks
Club of Venice
EU communication policy
EuroPCom
Interinst. Cooperation
WPI/spokes Member
States
WPI: Working Party on Information
EDIC: European Documentation and Information Centre
EPIO: European Parliament Information Office
IGI: Inter-institutional Group on Information
Club of Venice: Informal group of EU institutions‘ and government communication professionals
EuroPCom: European Conference on Public Communication

20. Communicating EU Cohesion Policy

21. Communicating EU Cohesion Policy (1)
1989-1993: “information and publicity“ by the implementing authorities, towards
beneficiaries and general public; Commission to be informed;
1994-1999: publicity already for the “development plan”; a Commission Decision laid
down detailed arrangements on a “coherent set of measures” to be implemented by
the “competent national, regional and local authorities in cooperation with the
Commission’s departments”;
2000-2006: specific regulation on “information and publicity measures” laid down
requirements for billboards, communication plans, including a strategy and a budget,
and persons in charge at national and MA level for monitoring and coordinating the
plans; an informal network of communication officers, the Structural Funds Information
Team (SFIT), is set up in 2002; European Transparency Initiative (2005) requires access
to funding data;

22. Communicating EU Cohesion Policy (2)
2007-2013: provisions are part of the implementing regulation an define
communication plans as well as “minimal requirements” for the managing authorities
and the final beneficiaries for informing the general public, and the publication of a list
of final beneficiaries by the managing authority; INFORM (DG REGIO) and INIO (DG
EMPL) become formal networks of communication officers including annual meetings
and conferences (2007, 2013);
2014-2020: 7-year communication strategy to be accompanied by annual action plans
adopted by the Monitoring Committee), single website for all EU cohesion policy
programmes at national level; definition of lists of beneficiaries more detailed, to be
updated every six months.
2008, 2010, 2013: Eurobarometer surveys on awareness and perception of EU regional
policy:
Level of awareness: between 49% (2008) and 34% (2010, 2013)
Positive perception: between 70% (2008) and 77% (2013)

23. Eurobarometer Flash 384/2013
Ever heard about EU-funding improving the area you live in?

24. Does regional EU-funding have a positive or negative impact?
Eurobarometer Flash
384/2013

25. EU communication flows
National governments
EU messages
National media Civil society, parties,
lobby organisations
EU-minded/fund seekers
General public
Elite public
EU public
Institutions, tools, channels: EU projects, internet, (social) networks, media

26. New approach for EU communication strategy
2015-2019?

27. • Eurobarometer surveys confirm that a European identity and the feeling
of belonging vary across countries and time.
• In legal terms, EU citizenship have developed through Treaty revisions
(Maastricht, Amsterdam) and led to the concept of “complementary EU
citizenship“.
• Historically, EU communication policy is rooted in information given by
EU institutions to EU-minded bureaucrat and expert communities.
• Since the end of the 1980s, EU programmes, namely the ones co-
financed by the structural funds, have developed detailed rules and
tools for publicity and communication around the funds‘
interventions.
• With the fall of the Santer Commission in 1999, EU institutions have
opened up to new ways of symmetric communication.
• Communication and media research on European identity and
citizenship has focused on the concept of a ‘European public sphere‘.
Conclusions

28. More information:
Wolfgang.Petzold@cor.europa.eu
Tom.DeSmedt@cor.europa.eu