EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Office of NEIL KINNOCK Assistant

Brussels, 26 May 2003 JHC D(2003)

Proactive Communications Strategy for VP Kinnock on the Language Services

Introduction and remit
Key messages
Multilingualism
Reform
Enlargement
Audiences

Recommendation

Annex A: Language Strategy Actions
Annex B: Defensive and additional Q&A

Introduction and remit:

The translation and interpretation services of the European institutions are an undoubted success story, with a quality and level of service unparalleled amongst world institutions in both the public and private sectors. Three hundred and eighty million customers plus 11 languages equals a massive organisational and logistical operation – and yet SCIC and DGT deliver consistently high quality linguistic services for the Commission. More is to come with enlargement. The paradox is that good news is not, as we know, front page news. This submission therefore attempts to identify both news and non-news communication opportunities to raise the profile of the good work being done over the next five months, with the particular involvement of Mr Kinnock (and DGs and service members, where appropriate). The author wishes to express her sincere thanks to colleagues in DGT and SCIC, on whose efforts much of this submission is based.

The aim of this submission is not to address the reactive/rebuttal and hard news service that the spokesmen, and DGT and SCIC press officers provide on a day-to-day basis. The aim is to look at ways to weave one coherent message through every communication Mr Kinnock (and therefore also DGs and staff) makes – be it interviews, speeches, mission discussions, etc. This will help build on the proactive work being done (for example what SCIC and DGT have been doing with applicant countries) to generate a critical mass of interest in the Commission’s work on languages, which will raise the profile and stimulate reactive approaches.

Key messages:

Commission européenne, B-1049 Bruxelles / Europese Commissie, B-1049 Brussel - Belgium.
Telephone: (32-2) 299 11 11. Office: MO34. Telephone: direct line (32-2) 2985611.
E-mail: janet.coull@cec.eu.int

Multilingualism:

• The ability for citizens to communicate with institutions in all eleven national languages within the European Union institutions is a democratic right. Not only that – it is also an obligation under the EC treaty (Articles 21 and 314) and in regulation 1/58. Our languages are bridges, not barriers.

• Multilingualism is at the core of the two values of unity and diversity in Europe. Multilingualism brings unity, a means of social and economic development. Multilingualism brings diversity, a cause of celebration for all Europeans. The more we strengthen our democracy and equity, the more important it is to celebrate our diversity, identity and distinctiveness. Language is fundamental to this process.

• Without multilingualism, the Portuguese fisherman cannot read and comply with the fishing directive that applies to his work. Without it the Italian businesswoman cannot understand the reply to her letter from the Commissioner for trade. Without it the MEP from the Netherlands cannot fully represent the views of those who voted for him back home. And without it you are unable to send your best finance minister to represent your country in negotiations – just your best linguist. Functionally, we must ensure ease of communication.

• Democracy, and therefore multilingualism, costs. But we should put this in context. The cost of translation and interpretation for the EU institutions is only 0.8% of the EU running costs (ie less than €700 million currently - and after enlargement still less than €1 billion, or less than 1% of the budget). [If pressed] This represents about 1/150th of the CAP budget. So one year of CAP would buy 150 years of translation and interpretation! In other words, just €2 per EU citizen per year is the cost of i) producing legislation and information in your language, ii) allowing those representing you to do it well and iii) enabling you to contribute to EU business in your own language. But this is not an extravagant luxury – this is the bedrock of a fully functioning democratic system. The real cost would be the cost of not communicating.

• However, we must distinguish between communicating with citizens and communicating between officials in the Commission. At the moment officials work within the Commission using a core of three languages for discussion and decisionmaking: English, French and German. These are the procedural languages - derived from of pure pragmatism - and are used for speed and convenience. For example, 58% of all drafting of documents requiring translation is done in English, and 29% in French. The most widely spoken foreign languages by EU citizens (EUR 15) are English (41%), French (19%) and German (10%). It should be noted that Italian and Spanish are also quite widely spoken as foreign languages. Therefore, out of convenience only, these are the most commonly spoken languages within the Commission.

Reform:

• The fact that we have some of the best translation and interpretation services in the world is not an accident. Although quite different services (SCIC providing on-the-spot interpretation for meetings using trained interpreters and DGT providing written translation using trained translators), both have demonstrated a high level of linguistic and professional excellence. DGT now translates 1.3m pages per year on a budget of around €197m, with output up 2.8% on 2001 and productivity up 2.2%. SCIC interprets for approximately 11,000 meetings held each year, on a staff of around 700 interpreters each day, on a budget of €100m. SCIC has reduced the cost of an interpreter day by 4% over the last year. In order to deliver this level of service in a cost-efficient manner these services have been at the forefront of the reforming drive for excellence and efficiency across the Commission.

• The challenge of minimising the cost of multilingualism has also motivated the Commission to develop a strategy to minimise the total volume of translation and interpretation work in order to focus on real needs. At the initiative of Mr Kinnock, the Commission adapted an overall strategy in Spring 2002 in order to improve further the overall offering of the linguistic services, in terms of efficiency and productivity increases, while limiting overall demand when necessary.

• SCIC has already achieved massive efficiency gains through: the use of the ‘Real Needs’ policy (set up to give efficient coverage of Commission meetings with sector and member state interests, so that although these meetings make up 54% of the meetings serviced by the SCIC they consume only 35% of the interpreter days); the use of demand management and service level agreements; the long-term hiring of freelance interpreters; the creation of a separate financial unit within SCIC; savings resulting from better interinstitutional co-operation; and better identification, recruitment, training and testing of interpreters.

• In July 2003 DGT will complete a reorganisation of its operations to increase efficiency. The structure will be rationalised along language lines, rather than subject lines, allowing the number of units to be reduced by around 22%. DGT has a translating staff of around 1,200, and also sends out more than 20% of its work to freelance translators. Already efficiency gains have been demonstrated: eg a drive to produce more concise/focussed documents prior to translation; the use of relay or two-way translation; target for outsourcing more non-core translations of 30% by 2005; producing oral/written summaries; pilot of greater internal billing in 2003; greater use of service level agreements, etc.

• One large part of the drive for efficiency is greater inter-institutional collaboration; for example EPSO’s inter-institutional recruitment procedure. Deloitte & Touche is currently producing an independent report, ready in July, on the feasibility of fusion of the translation services of EU institutions. SCIC and the Interpretation Directorate of the European Parliament already co-operate closely in the recruitment and exchange of freelance interpreters for the accession languages, and EP interpreters are employed in some meetings with Commissioners in Strasbourg.

Enlargement:

• Enlargement from May 2004 will bring nine more languages and 75 million more citizens with whom we need to communicate – and a theoretical increase from 110 possible combinations of languages to 380. For example, DGT estimates that in 2006, translation demand will rise from 1.3 million pages a year to 2.4 million pages.

• This does not weaken our commitment and legal obligation to multilingualism – it strengthens and deepens it.

• SCIC and DGT are among the vanguard services in terms of preparation plans. Some of the very first temporary staff from accession countries for the Commission services will be interpreters and translators (alongside linguist-jurists who are already translating acquis) based in accession countries, who will start working from this month (May 2003). A training plan for existing staff is already underway, offering courses in all the accession languages. For example, 75% of the Hungarian training has already taken place for translators. SCIC currently has 60 interpreters studying accession languages, although a greater use of bridging languages and two-way interpreting will also be an efficient way to continue with the high standards of interpretation after enlargement. We cannot overstate the level of intellectual and cultural commitment displayed by the linguists involved in learning new languages.

• The first elements of change that enlargement brings will be in place in May 2004. There will then be a phasing in of language services for the new member states, with a view to being up at cruising speed in 2007. This is consistent with previous, smaller, enlargements.

- Based on the current 50/50 split between internal and external resources, SCIC is aiming by 2007 to employ 40 interpreters per new language added per day, of which half would be freelance, leading to just a 40 per cent increase in interpreters - even though the number of languages will nearly double. SCIC also expects to recruit a further 40 administrative and support staff. The current average cost of interpretation for a oneday meeting at the Commission is less than €5,200, for example, and after enlargement – all other things being equal – this is forecast to rise only marginally to around €5,750.

- DGT expects to employ 37 new staff per language in 2004 (of which 21 are expected to be the LA category), rising to an expected 110 when the service is up to cruising speed in 2007 (of which 60 are expected to be the LA category).

- EPSO (the new inter-institutional recruitment office) launched inter-institutional competitions for interpreters and translators in April this year. Of the (up to) 50 enlargement competitions, 18 are for linguists.

Audiences:

·   International (Brussels based) media

·   Member states’ and accession countries’ national media

·   Sectoral/trade/technical/academic publications

·   Opinion formers (ministers, professors, users of the services etc)

Actions:
See Annex A.

Defensive and additional Q&A:
See Annex B

Recommendation:
Approve messages and actions, with a view to marking out diary time for these commitments. Welcome further detail on costings for promotional material.
Janet Coull

Contact:
Janet Coull, Telephone:(32-2) 2985611, janet.coull@cec.eu.int

Annex A

Language Strategy Actions

Timeline:

Targets and more ongoing work:

International (Brussels-based) media:

-          We should aim to secure one major interview focussed on languages with a Brussels correspondent. The thrust will be reform and enlargement within the context of multilingualism. This could be linked to the completion of the DGT reorganisation in July, for August publication. Reference could be made to the field offices that would have just opened in accession countries, with early statistics for recruitment possibly being made available. Possible takers include: Pascal Martin (Le Soir); Arnaud Leparmentier (Le Monde); Joachim Fritz Vannahme (Die Zeit); Andrew Osborn (Guardian); Michael Gonzalez (Wall Street Journal Europe); Ian Black (Guardian); Jean Quatremer (Liberation); Rory Watson (Freelance/Times/European Voice). Any interview with French and Belgian media would include particularly robust questioning and Mr Kinnock would need to be well prepared. We could also target possible TV or radio interest, perhaps showing crews around the services, seeing how they go about their business, topped with a Kinnock interview.

-          We should also aim to have three/four key points (from the key messages) that we aim to get into every general interview the Commissioner does with the Brussels press corp. Languages should be used to illuminate the enlargement and reform agendas, as an example of cutting-edge services in action. This should be a priority in every interview.

-          Now that the Commission’s press room has moved towards the proactive setting of the news agenda in its morning briefings with a ‘story of the day’ we should aim to hold one such briefing, perhaps with representatives from DGT/SCIC. This could either be at the completion of the DGT reorganisation, or perhaps on 26th September - the European Day of Languages. This would need to be packaged, perhaps with announcements on the recruitment of the first temporary staff and the first live webchat interview with Mr Kinnock in all the new languages.

-          The first ever full meeting with accession countries is due to be held on May 26th, and a publicity opportunity should be centred on this historic meeting. The idea of a press conference with ministers from the accession states should be considered, although logistics would need to be carefully thought out. Languages (recruitment, enlargement issues etc) should be a strong feature of any script.

-          To sustain interest in the subject area it is advised that a new set of high-quality promotional materials is developed (such as that currently being developed by SCIC). These materials would include clear but detailed brochures of key messages and facts. Forewords could be by Mr Kinnock and DGs. It is possible that we could look at developing new promotional videos for the services to give broadcasters new clipping material. This would be subject to budgetary approval. Branding should be consistent and recognisable.

Member states’ and accession states’ national media:

-          Mr Kinnock is currently completing a tour of member states to discuss the staff regulations. On previous missions media opportunities have often been incorporated into the timetable. We should ensure that each remaining visit contains a media opportunity with domestic media, with languages being brought out as an example of reform.

-          It is also planned for Mr Kinnock to visit a number of accession states from June. Here we have an opportunity to conduct interviews based largely on languages, ie the enlargement messages. Mr Kinnock could also add to his timetable a press visit to the new languages offices opening around May/June, plus perhaps a university translation school (or similar place of preparation for enlargement), to see the preparations in action. Brussels-based journalists from the accession countries could accompany on any such visit. Already Estonian TV has expressed an interest interviewing Mr Kinnock on the subject of the recruitment of interpreters, which is a particular challenge in Estonia.

-          All commission offices should actively disseminate the new promotional material described above. We should liaise with them to build on educational events they are planning.

Sectoral/trade/technical/academic media:

-          It should be possible, especially given the increasing interest in enlargement over the coming months, to place some by-lined articles in specialist press or to set up short interview slots with the Commissioner. If time/distance is an obstacle we could facilitate a Q&A session through written correspondence. The Deloitte and Touche report may be of interest to some. They would also be interested in the launch of the European language portal in July. Perhaps one publication would be interested in a diary/countdown to enlargement focussing on the preparations, problems, actions running up to enlargement. Publications to be targeted include: public sector reform magazines eg Public Finance Magazine (UK); specialist language magazines; internally generated publications such as SCIC News and Commission en Direct (SCIC has prepared a piece for May’s Management Matters on the ‘smart’ use of interpreters, and CenD is also doing a piece in May).

-          Features interest from specialist radio broadcasters such as BBC World Service, Deutsche Welle, and Radio France Internationale could be generated by offering access to the Commissioner and to the services themselves – such as the recent NOS Dutch radio interview. This could involve interviewing translators and interpreters, clipping from high-level interpreted delegations, etc.

Opinion formers:

-          It is vital that those with whom we do business (ministers from member states, other Commissioners, members of the trade such as heads of department for professional linguists) are also exposed to this consistent message, to act as third party advocates. As such they should, at the very least, receive the new promotional material. It might be appropriate for the Commissioner to refresh his contacts with them (perhaps stakeholder breakfasts) to drive this home. At most they could be recruited as independent voices that could be offered for interview to help supplement a journalist’s piece. The aim should be to cultivate a list of onmessage people who can be called upon at short notice for interview.

-          Mr Kinnock could be involved in the launch of an internal campaign to encourage ‘smart’ usage of interpreters, launched mid May. This to encourage users to speak freely rather than read and be aware of good communication practice in interpreted meetings after enlargement (ie be short, to-the-point, and to provide meeting documents to interpreters in advance). This awareness campaign has been presented to the future Italian and Irish presidencies in Rome in May.

-          Effort should be made to co-ordinate with DG Education and Culture (re encouraging language learning) and DG Enlargement over any events planned to look at joint ventures.

Annex B

Defensive and additional Q&A

Beyond the core messages in the main submission there are also commonly asked defensive and additional Q&As that will form a part of all interviews.

On the principle of multilingualism:

Q            Why not simply use one language in the European institutions, say English or Esperanto, for ease and to save money?

A             (See also key messages; this is a defensive expansion.) Quite simply, because not everyone in the EU knows one language. Multilingualism is a Council regulation no 1 and treaty obligation. When states accede to the EU they stipulate a language in which they mainly wish to communicate (one of the ‘national’ ones) and this is how we ensure democratic transparency and participation. Ireland, for example, nominated English mainly, with Irish being used only for treaties and responding to communications addressed to the EU institutions in Irish.

Secondly, besides this obligation, we must ask ourselves the simple question: would you like to read all communications and see all laws that apply to you written only in a language that you don’t understand? The massive cultural, educational and linguistic shift that would be required for the adoption of Esperanto as the main language would be simply impossible. What is convenient for one group would not work for all – and it is essential that all can communicate. Respecting national cultures, identities and languages is the foundation of the success of the European project. By using just one or even three languages, the risk of cultural, political and democratic exclusion for the huge numbers of people who couldn’t communicate would be grave.

Thirdly, if there were no interpretation and translation in Brussels, there would need to be more in the member states, so the costs would not be reduced by much, if at all. With a centralised system at EU level there are economies of scale; for example, in terms of hiring rates for freelance interpreters and translators, and also in terms of ensuring uniform quality.

Finally, we are a long way from being able to communicate official-to-official in just one main language. This is simply not feasible due to the demography of officials, both present and future.

Q            Why are we recruiting Maltese translators when there are so few Maltese speakers but not Catalan translators when this is a large minority language?

A             Malta, upon accession, will have stipulated Maltese as their official language. Spain, when they acceded, stipulated Castillan Spanish – not Catalan – as their official language.

Q            What are you doing to protect the use French/Spanish/Italian/German/etc language inside and outside the Commission?

A             It is not the European Commission’s role or desire to promote or denigrate any one language. Many member states have their own language promotion programmes, and DG Education and Culture works hard to encourage language learning. We welcome the learning of languages other than the mother tongue for all citizens and officials who choose to do so. What is important regarding the EU institutions is that we communicate, not the languages in which we communicate.

Q             Doesn’t the dominance of English lead to more than just the use of the language? Doesn’t it also increase the incidence of Anglo-Saxon thinking? How do you prevent this policy bias?

A             We would dispute the argument that the learning of a language leads to a taking on of cultural norms. There is no ‘one English’ language, just as there is no ‘one French’ or ‘one German’. These three languages, like many others, are international languages whose usage travels far beyond their native countries and are free from cultural stereotyping. Languages are also learned in a variety of ways, sometimes without any reference to the countries to which the mother tongue belong. As such, we would also dispute the notion of a national way of thinking – there is no such thing in a democracy.

On the cost of multilingualism:

Q             What are you doing to minimise costs of multilingualism?

A             (See also key messages on the low cost.) Excellence in translating and interpreting, together with efficiency, are our twin aims. We must ensure that we provide a top quality service in both respects. However, we are also focussed on reducing costs through:

-          The introduction of an overall strategy in Spring 2002, at the initiative of Mr Kinnock, in order to further improve overall offering of linguistic services, in terms of efficiency and productivity increases, while limiting overall demand when necessary.

-          The development of internal billing between services and DGT, and service level agreements between SCIC and the Council).

-          Greater inter-institutional co-operation in terms of recruitment and economies of scale.

-          The reduction of the number of mandatory reports. This makes officials work smarter and cuts costs.

-          More preparation work with translators and interpreters. For example, if translators are involved at the drafting stage of actions and legislation then they can ensure minimal translation is required in intermediate stages and when the finished product arrives.

-          The ‘smart’ use of interpreters. Scoping is undertaken to ensure that interpreters are only deployed when needed and that delegates know how to get the most out of them (avoiding reading from a script, briefing in advance about complex issues and acronyms, etc).

-          A greater use of ‘just-in-time’ translation. This involves flexible, translation on demand but only where a clear case is demonstrated, thus streaming work and creating greater recognition of cost for the customer. - The learning of ‘translation-friendly’ drafting techniques by officials, called clear writing courses. There is still greater scope here for embedding this within drafting software programmes.

-          Further computerisation of translation techniques, such as the translation workbench (a memory programme which matches translations against similar previous translations so that translators don’t reinvent the wheel) and machine translation. SCIC is also developing its online chat service so that real time interpretation can occur with delegates online, through text.

On enlargement:

Q             How many officials will (have to) be recruited in order to accommodate the new member states in Brussels? How many of them in translation and interpretation jobs?

A             Some 3,900 new staff all told for the Commission, and roughly 6,500 for all the institutions (estimates made in 2001/2002). In the Commission, of those 3900, some 20 will be full-time interpreters per new language, plus support staff and freelancers (40). In 2004, the Commission also foresees recruiting some 37 translators per language (FTE), of which 21 will be the LA category. At cruising speed by 2007 DGT currently estimates the need for some 110 translators and support staff per language (of which 60 will be LAs).

It’s important to note that they won’t be recruited all at once: there will be a transition period as there was with previous enlargements. It will take some years to get up to full strength, but we plan to be operational from May 2004.

Q             Where will they be coming from? From new countries only?

A             We expect the officials will come mainly from the new countries but the interpreters' competitions are open also to nationals of the current member states, provided they have one of the new languages at working level. The freelancers can come from elsewhere, but the language requirements are very strict (it requires mother-tongue equivalent knowledge to interpret into a language).

All accession countries now have postgraduate programmes, supported by the services. SCIC, for example, assists universities with curriculum advice, subsidies, bursaries, training for trainers, teaching assistance, teaching materials etc.

Q             How many languages do (new) interpreters, for example, have to learn? What other recruitment criteria are there for interpreters?

A             The interpreters recruited through the open competition will have to have a total of three languages, one of which must be one of the new languages. If they know one of the current official languages well enough to be able to interpret both ways between the new language and the current member state language - say from Slovak into Portuguese and from Portuguese into Slovak - then two languages is enough.

The recruitment process for officials is organised through a general, open, inter-institutional competition. For interpretation one of the admission criteria is a university degree in interpretation or another university degree with relevant professional experience as conference interpreter of minimum one year.

Q             Why is the concours (also known as the competition) aimed at recruiting the first wave of accession state officials only to be conducted in three languages?

A             We should be clear – not all of the concours will just be in three languages, only multiple choice and administrative parts. Other parts will be available in all 11 languages. This recruitment round is a unique one in that we have not yet fully recruited all the accession country language staff we need to allow the concours to be fully run in all the accession languages. Besides, it is essential that officials are able to work in at least one of these three languages anyway. The most discursive, essay part of the concours will be in the applicant’s first language.

Q             Are experiences from earlier enlargement useful in the current enlargement process?

A             Absolutely: and in many ways for SCIC and DGT, there is nothing new in the principle of this enlargement, it is very much business as usual. What is new is the scale. Accordingly, both DGT and SCIC began preparing several years ago regarding training, providing assistance to universities in candidate states, etc. SCIC, for example, has been training interpreters and interpreter trainers since the early ‘90s. A task force to prepare for enlargement was set up in DGT in 1996. This task force has, for example, helped the candidate countries set up their own translation units so that they could translate EU legislation into their own languages, and it is also training inhouse translators in the languages of those countries. SCIC and the DGT will be posting officials in the candidate countries in the coming months to oversee the preparatory work carried out by the linguists from the candidate countries (for example, preparing lists of technical terminology in the different areas of EU activity). Temporary SCIC interpreters will be providing teaching support in these countries from May as well.

Training of in-house translators in the new languages has been going on for some years on a completely voluntary basis. Around 60 SCIC interpreters are currently studying one or other of the new languages. And this year, for the first time, staff of all the institutions, including translators and interpreters, are being offered intensive summer courses in the applicant country languages.

Q             Won’t enlargement mean that English becomes more dominant inside and outside the Commission?

A             [Defensive only] We could easily have a debate about which languages we think might tend to dominate Commission business in the future, especially as officials from accession states take up their posts and the demography (and therefore most familiar languages spoken) of officials changes. We would welcome any such debate and hope it would be a frank and open one.