Towards a European PEN Network
RESULTS FROM A PRELIMINARY SURVEY For several years now PEN centres across Europe have been engaged in discussions about the creation of a European PEN Network. At the international meetings in Tokyo (2010), Brussels (2011) and Belgrade (2011) several meetings have been devoted especially to this topic, which led to a common agreement on the usefulness of such a Europe-wide cooperation and produced several exciting new ideas about how to achieve it. The meetings have helped us to identity three possible levels of activity:
It is in relation to the first level that this brief report should be read. It contains a summary of the results of a limited survey conducted among European PEN centres present at the Belgrade meeting in October 2011. In addition, some information is gathered from the various websites of these centres. This information presented here offers a snapshot of current activities and action plans among a broad range of PEN centres across Europe. It can be regarded as a source of inspiration on how to run a European PEN centre, but it is also an exercise in information exchange. The report provides a broad sketch of the existing diversity of practices across European PEN centres, but the information presented is of course far from complete and susceptible to change. The data offered here are not meant to provide a full and definite picture of what exists; they rather serve to foster discussion among centres and, ideally, will stimulate new ideas about how new forms of cooperation can be set up and how additional channels for Europe-wide communication among centres can be developed. As such it is part of an open-ended process toward a stronger and clearly identifiable presence of PEN centres in Europe and in the wider world. In addition, it is hoped that this exercise in information exchange will in the future also lead to further Europe-wide PEN activities in relation to the earlier mentioned levels two and three. In particular, the European PEN Network could work with PEN International on European and international lobbying (e.g. by identifying relevant issues; and bringing together writers from across the region), which will feed into PEN International’s overall plans for a more joined-up policy towards engaging with international mechanisms. Below is a summary of the conclusions from the limited survey conducted at the conference in Belgrade in 2011. If you want to read the full report, please download the pdf-file from this link. Or check this presentation for a summary. 1. PEN CENTERS IN EUROPE: CURRENT SITUATION
According to the website of PEN International there are at this moment a total of 65 PEN centers across the European continent. A complete list, containing contact information for all these centres, is to be found on this link. Of these 65 the following 12 PEN centres were so kind to participate in the 2011 survey (response rate: 18 %). In the rest of this report they will be referred to as ‘the surveyed centres’. 2. ACTIVITIES AND ACHIEVEMENTS a. overview of ongoing activities All 12 surveyed centres campaign for free speech in general and/or in their own country. They do so in myriad ways, including through press releases and targeted media action. In addition:
Other interesting activities mentioned:
b. overview of active participation in PEN international subcommittees
c. proudest achievements Each centre has particular achievements that they are proud of. The survey asked to mention these proudest achievements, and most of the centres responded to this question. The answers point to the fact the a lot of PEN centres are proud of achievements on three fields: (1) internal organizational developments, (2) networking activities, and (3) actions towards the wider world. Below is a sample of the responses of the surveyed PEN centers. More information about these achievements can be found on the websites of the centres in question, or upon direct request from the centres.
d. new plans Out of the 12 surveyed centers, 9 have provided some information on their future plans. It is evident from the responses that the surveyed PEN centers have strong intentions to develop the most successful of their activities. The plans relate to (1) internal organizational developments, (2) networking activities, and (3) actions towards the wider world. It appears from the answers, however, that few centers have at this moment a well developed plan for activities on all three levels. This shows that there is indeed room for growth. Some centres have signaled their intent to engage in new public events and improve their communication strategies. Opportunities for further plans are also to be found in the area of member recruitment and cross-country coordinated campaigns. Below is a sample of the responses of the surveyed PEN centers. More information about these achievements can be found on the websites of the centres in question, or upon direct request from the centres.
3. MEMBERSHIP a. number of members Among European PEN centers diversity is important, also in terms of members. Small PEN centres might have different experiences and a different expertise than centres with a high number of members. Small or high membership numbers may be a deliberate choice. Centers that are aiming to gain a higher number of members could contact centers that already have a high numbers. Exchange of information could also run the other way, as small PEN centers might be able to advise bigger ones about the ways in which they may engage their members in their activities and about what number they regard as ideal and for what reason. Some approximate membership figures from the surveyed PEN centers:
b. membership criteria What do the surveyed centers expect from their members, apart from their dedication to PEN Charter? What do they have to have achieved in order to be eligible for membership? On the basis of the partial information that came out of the survey it is clear that most centers expect from their members that they have published a book or some books. Some centers, however, have extended their membership to people with distinguished achievements in the cultural field. c. categories of members apart from writers Some centers accept different categories of members. From the survey it can be established that, although there is variety, PEN centers tend to recruit beyond literary writers and also accept other categories of members, including academics, booksellers, literary agents, students, translators, and publishers. c. subscription fees Subscription fees vary substantially from center to center. They range between 160 euro annually (the highest among the surveyed centers) and 20 euro (the lowest). Two of the surveyed centers distinguish between full members and associate members. Some have special reductions for special categories of members and some have supporting members who pay a higher fee. d. benefits for members Out of the 12 surveyed centers 9 offer their members access to their events, 4 centers also offer a free subscription to a magazine. Some centers offer access to information (address list of members), a free yearly publication (handbook, yearbook). In the case of PEN Esperanto a free language course is offered. e. highlighted successful recruitment techniques Most of the surveyed centers agree that the best way of recruiting new members is through personal networking and conferences. Although one center points out the possibility of recruitment through the internet and social media, no center has highlighted any specific examples of recruitment campaigns through these channels. f. new plans for member recruitment The surveyed centers do not have any new plans for the recruitment of new members, but all of them are want to continue to rely on their own existing techniques. This means that they will further develop their personal networks and continue to be present at conferences or organize their own meetings to which potential members are invited in targeted mailings. 4. COMMUNICATION a. usage of communication means Most of the centers rely on email newsletters as the most important means of communication. Most centers also have a printed newsletter and a website. Blogs and social media are clearly less popular. b. most effective means of communication All centers have noted that email (either in the form of newsletters or ad hoc messages) is their most effective means of communication. c. publicizing campaigns The surveyed centers rely on the above mentioned means of communication in their campaigns. For majority of the centers, however, three forms of communication are specifically used for campaigns:
d. communication plans Some centers have mentioned the following new means of communication:
5. FINANCES a. income and expenditure in 2011 From the survey only a very partial view can be gained of the income and expenditure of the various centers. It is clear, however, that budgets differ significantly. The largest center could in 2011 rely on an income of 600,000 euro, while the smallest mentioned figure in the survey was an income of 10,000 euro. For the figures submitted in the survey it is clear that the expenditures remain slightly under the income figures. b. what approximate percentage of the funding received comes from which sources?
Other types of funding that are sometimes used are: charitable foundations and income from events. c. most successful fundraising strategies and new fundraising plans In terms of strategies outside membership recruitment, the surveyed centers rely mainly (even almost exclusively) on government funding applications and donations. There is, however, clearly a lack of plans on the extension of fundraising techniques. 5. MANAGEMENT a. number of people in the board From the survey it is clear that the number of people in the board varies from 5 to 13. In all cases the board members are elected by the assembly (except in the case of PEN Vlaanderen, where members are appointed and approved by the assembly). b. number of board meetings The average number of board meetings per year is 4. c. staff Five of the surveyed centers have at least one part-time paid staff member. d. collaborations with other organizations The organizations mentioned are: Heinrich Böll Stiftung, Reporters without Borders, Amnesty International, The Helsinki Committee, The Human Rights Network, The Norwegian Federation of Journalists, Universities |