A public institution, before and after: anatomy of a communications overhaul.

Context: external pressure, internal calendar

ANF — Romania's National Phytosanitary Authority — operates in a field most Romanians don't notice until something happens: residues in food, pest outbreaks, a pesticide pulled from the market. The authority's mission is dual: protect the end consumer and support the farmer who produces.

The institutional reform of ANF accelerated in the broader context of Romania's OECD accession process, formalised in January 2022 with the official invitation to begin negotiations. For the phytosanitary sector, OECD alignment means three simultaneous directions:

• harmonising maximum residue limits (MRLs) for plant protection products;
• modernising the on-market pesticide control system;
• implementing a monitoring network comparable to OECD countries.

In short: the institution had to do more, communicate better, and demonstrate that both were happening. That's where we came in — on the communications side.

What we found

Before proposing a direction, we audited. The reality was predictable for a public authority that hadn't previously had an editorial plan:

• Communications plan: non-existent.
• Editorial calendar: missing.
• Monthly organic reach: ~5,000 people.
• Engagement rate: under 0.5%.
• Target audience: undefined.

ANF's communication followed the classic institutional model: Official Gazette, press releases in legal language, technical materials published on the site without editorial direction. The message reached its legal target — specialists — but didn't cross the bureaucratic barrier to those who actually needed it: the farmer and the end consumer.

That was the real problem. A farmer in Teleorman trying to find out whether pesticide X was still allowed, or whether a warning had been issued for a new disease, had to read documents written for lawyers. In practice, they didn't read them — and risked making the wrong call. And the Romanian consumer had no clear way to find out whether the products on the shelf were tested or not.

The strategic call: three parallel plans

The solution wasn't 'let's simplify' the institutional layer. That would have compromised legal compliance — a public authority cannot publish only the simplified version of a regulation. The solution was three parallel communication plans, each with its own logic, each optimised for a distinct audience.

Institutional plan

Formal, compliant, audit-friendly communication: Official Gazette, traditional press releases, technical materials, position papers for institutional partners (ministries, parallel authorities, European bodies).

Direct-to-farmer plan

Explanatory, accessible, practical communication: social media, short videos, infographics, step-by-step guides. Audience: the small and medium farmer, who uses Facebook far more than email.

Direct-to-consumer plan

Trust communication: Romanian products are tested, the system works, here is the evidence. Audience: the Romanian end consumer, split (we’ll see why in a moment) between two parallel camps of skepticism.

All three plans tell the same truth. Only the register and the angle differ. This tripling is the key — most institutions try to reach every audience with the same message, and miss all of them.

Institutional plan: preserve compliance

For the institutional plan, we worked from inside the public sector's logic — not against it:

• Refreshed visual identity, still compliant with general government identity guidelines.
• Press release templates with built-in audit trail — numbered versions, signed approvals, change logs.
• Official press kit for agriculture journalists, with speakers list, contacts, background data.
• Position papers for public consultations, legislative transpositions, contributions to European legislation.
• Standard English-language materials for international partners, compliant with EU and OECD requirements.

Essential: everything delivered has a complete paper trail. Brief, approval, version, publication. When the audit arrives — and in the public sector it does — everything is verifiable.

Direct-to-farmer plan: the forgotten audience

This is where the first real shift happened. We identified three big topics farmers needed to understand, not just receive:

Maximum residue limits (MRLs)

What they mean, how they are calculated, how they affect the decision to use a product. The most abstract concept in the field, turned into a series of short explanations with concrete crop examples. Plain language, without compromising scientific accuracy.

Pest attack warnings

Format: rapid alert, geographically relevant, clear instructions. Communicated within 24 hours of outbreak confirmation. Distribution: official ANF pages, partnerships with agricultural cooperatives, local Facebook groups of farmers — where the audience actually is, not where we'd like it to be.

The farmer's technical obligations

Three obligations that, if missed, block activity or trigger sanctions:

• Mandatory technical inspection of spraying equipment — when, where, how, what documents.
• Training courses for pesticide use — calendar, accredited institutions, costs.
• Record-keeping for plant protection products — what documentation the farmer keeps, for how long, to whom they report.

We don’t reinvent content. We just explain it in the language the audience speaks.

Direct-to-consumer plan: two parallel forms of skepticism

Alongside the farmer, there's a third audience: the Romanian end consumer. The message is simple to formulate and complicated to deliver — Romanian food production is systematically tested, and ANF is the institution doing that testing.

The complication comes from a divided audience. In our communications audit we identified two parallel forms of skepticism, each with its own internal logic, each immune to the direct message.

Type A skeptic: 'everything is poisoned, nothing is safe anymore'

Generalised distrust in the agri-food chain. Belief that regulation is formal rather than real, that pesticides are used without restraint, that labels lie. This audience can't be persuaded by 'everything is fine' — that's exactly what confirms their suspicion.

Strategy: radical transparency on control data, communicating concrete cases where the system worked (products pulled from the market, residues detected, sanctions applied). The more often you show the system catching abuse, the more the 'everything is poisoned' skepticism erodes.

Type B skeptic: 'ANF is doing the foreigners' bidding'

The conspiracy belief that the Romanian authority applies excessive standards to denigrate national production, in the interest of importers and European competitors who want to sell their goods on the Romanian market. This audience can't be persuaded by 'we're aligned with European standards' — that's exactly what confirms their theory.

Strategy: communicate the context. ANF applies to Romanian production the same standards every EU country applies to its own producers — not invented requirements meant to burden the Romanian farmer. These standards are the passport of Romanian production to export markets: without complying with European MRLs, domestic products cannot be sold in the single market. ANF doesn't block Romanian agriculture — it provides the framework that lets it compete in the EU. Key message: strict standards are an economic asset, not a handicap. As for import controls — a responsibility that belongs to other authorities — that's a complementary conversation, and we leave it where it belongs.

The practical solution: we didn't try to convince each skeptic one by one. We consistently communicated what ANF actually does — documented controls on domestic production, real recalls when warranted, public sanctions, alignment with European standards — and we let the audience update its own perception over time. It's slower. It's more honest. And it's the only path that doesn't produce backlash.

Mass media: the amplification channel

Alongside the three direct communication plans, we built the relationship with the agriculture press and generalist publications. The model was simple: we provide useful context, access to specialists, narrative. In exchange, specialist newsrooms started consulting the authority directly, instead of through formal requests answered after 30 days.

Operational result:

• Thematic briefings with specialist publications, scheduled quarterly.
• Crisis communications playbook ready for disease outbreaks, urgent product recalls, residue alerts.
• 24-hour press response availability (pre-reform: formal cycles, 30+ days).

The difference between a public institution the press ignores and one it consults comes down to the utility offered to the journalist. If the authority answers complex questions in 24 hours, it becomes a source. If it answers in 30 days via formal request — it doesn't.

The measurable results

Communication (our direct responsibility):

• Organic reach: from ~5,000 to +450,000 people / month (~+9,000%).
• Engagement rate: from under 0.5% to 6.8%.
• Published content: from 2–3 pieces / month to 40+ pieces / month.
• Editorial calendar: planned 30 days ahead.

Institutional capacity (result of international programmes + funding, not of communication):

• Analysis laboratories: from 2 to 6 (+200%).
• Mobile technical expertise laboratories: from 6 to 30 (+400%).

The distinction matters. Communication didn't build the laboratories. International funding and ANF's managerial capacity did. What communication did: make those results visible, build public trust in the institution, create a context where the farmer understands why a mobile laboratory in their county matters, and where the consumer sees that a real system operates behind the label.

Three lessons for the public sector

Three parallel registers, not one.

A public authority's audience isn't homogeneous. The specialist needs technical language; the farmer needs operational instructions; the consumer needs trust. Trying to pour all three into a single register produces failed communication for all of them. Better parallel plans, each optimised for its audience, all telling the same truth.

Communication doesn't replace substance.

If the institution doesn't reform in parallel with the communication effort, everything becomes propaganda — and it shows. At ANF it worked because real reform was happening: new laboratories, international programmes, increased operational capacity. Communication made visible what was already real.

The editorial calendar is non-optional.

Without a calendar, public communication reverts to reactive — we only speak when there's a problem, or when the minister asks. With a calendar planned 30 days ahead, communication becomes rhythmic, predictable for the audience, manageable for the internal team. The calendar is the most banal strategic decision and the most often ignored.