T R A I N I N G

  It was a perfect opportunity for some media coverage in an otherwise dry event. Workers who had been involved in the clean-up after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster of 1986 sat opposite international journalists in the press conference room in Aarhus, Denmark. It should have been a possibility for the anti-nuclear lobby to speak out clearly and concretely about the real dangers of nuclear power. But the participants were not prepared for the questions that journalists posed, or to give them the answers they wanted to hear.

  "When journalists asked them 'how did you feel?' they would answer 'I felt bad,' and when asked to clarify they said 'I felt very bad,'" remembers Iza Kruszewska, who acted as press officer for ECO Forum, the civil society organisation (CSO) coalition. Journalists couldn't even find out the basic facts about the issue because there was no press release on the subject.

  While most problems were experienced with environmental groups from the Newly Independent States, she says many CSOs from Central and East Europe were uncomfortable and unprofessional in front of critical journalists.

  The barriers were partly language-based, since representatives felt awkward speaking in a non-native tongue but also to a large extent cultural, says Kruszewska, who is of Polish-British origin. She notes that in communist countries people were typically reluctant to express their opinions too clearly.

  "The tradition was to present both sides of the story and not say which side you are on," she explains. For example an organisation against nuclear power might say that nuclear energy is dangerous but also add that it can be made safe. "I think there is a real need to do media training for campaigners to get their message over to the public," Kruszewska concludes.

  CSOs only need look to international organisations and politicians to understand why they must get their act together on public relations. At the Aarhus ministerial conference, reporters were bombarded with press releases, speeches and eloquent words from various interest groups - the main source of information for articles written in the international press. If CSOs do not produce good written material and give quotable, critical answers, their voice will tend to be left out of the media debate and not filter down to the public themselves. Moreover, in Central and East Europe the press does not have the best reputation for investigative journalism. The tradition of sourcing the bulk of one's information from a single press conference, rather than seeking out the opposing side of the argument, still remains.

  That means it's even more important to put over a clear, understandable message, relying less on emotion than on facts and experience.

  In some cases, Western CSOs have provided training for their counterparts in Central and Eastern Europe, with encouraging results. The British motorway protest group, Reclaim the Streets, has worked with CSOs throughout Europe, giving them tips on how to attract publicity to their cause. Groups were taught to set up camps in trees and chain themselves up in areas where roads were scheduled to be built. The journalists loved it. Polish newspapers recently carried substantial coverage of the protests, which gave campaigners a chance to voice serious arguments to the public.

  Kruszewska notes that it is evidence that enormous progress has been made. "If that action had taken place eight years ago journalists wouldn't have understood the issue and CSOs wouldn't have been able to express why they were fighting this road," says Kruszewska.

  Greenpeace also worked with Central European CSOs in a campaign on genetic engineering of food. Experienced international campaigners and scientists sat alongside local experts at press conferences in Hungary and Poland.

  While publicity stunts can be invaluable in attracting attention to environmental issues, which might otherwise miss the headlines, campaigners should also be wary of alienating themselves from journalists - and their readers.

  Working with scientists and expert environmentalists is one way of adding credibility to a story which might otherwise be treated as a light topic in a newspaper.

  The increasing number of environmental lawyers can also provide valuable insight into an issue. Journalists are more likely to take a lawyer more seriously than a scruffy man who has been living in a tree for several days. The latter is important to draw attention to the problem but he must be backed up by strong environmental and economic arguments.

  Regular media contact with the country's main newspapers and magazines is an important step to inclusion in the press. Trainers can teach organisations to write clear press releases - with the same logo - on any new developments or events which it wants to highlight. Press conferences too, are important and particularly relevant if they are in response to an environmentally damaging news story, such as the start-up of a nuclear power station or an oil spill.

  Organisations can also draw attention to their cause by arranging less formal press events, linked to the launch of new projects or publications. Appointing a press officer who will establish links with the media and can recommend experts or spokespeople from the organisation, if a journalist is looking for a comment, is also a positive step. Former journalists or part-time journalists tend to be the best candidates for this post, since they understand what the press is looking for.

  The key idea that trainers should instill into their pupils is that journalists are writing for the general public. A workshop of Central and East European environmental journalists held in Aarhus prior to the conference concluded that, to gain media coverage, environmental campaigns must be made relevant to the issues that people face in everyday life. Cynically, that can be brought down to two main concerns: health and money. If environmental organisations can alert journalists of problems connected to these issues, the media hounds will undoubtedly prick up their ears.