Development cooperation and europlanning: experience and lessons learned

The experience and teachings of Javier Schunk, director of the Master’s in International Cooperation at ISPI in Milan: an in-depth look at europlanning.

A common path, a story to tell

The Prof. Javier Schunk has been directing the Master’s degree in International Cooperation at the ISPI in Milan (Institute for International Policy Studies). We met him as part of the Europlanning Course., which is part of the Master’s program and has been curated by our Guide staff since last year.

Prof. Schunk has known and used our Guide within the Master’s program for years. His comments have allowed us to add important new elements to the “corpus” of the Guide: a chapter dedicated to the path from institutions and policies to European calls and projects; and a chapter which, deepening this path, provides a finer and more detailed classification of European funds and programs.

As we shall see, these two points are central to Prof. Schunk’s experience and approach. However, they are not the only ones: his entire professional history is rich in insights and lessons learned for those involved in europlanning.

In this interview we will go through its main stages:

These and other interesting topics can be explored in the “Europlanning Module” of the new edition of the ISPI’s Master of International Cooperation., which will begin in October .

 

D. Javier, how did your “story” with Europlanning begin?

R. My story with europlanning, like all stories of exploration, certainly had a beginning, but also several turning points that led me to new discoveries.

My “gateway” to the world of europlanning was fieldwork in Senegal as part of a development cooperation project. From this experience, I came into contact with a Turin-based NGO active in this field, with whom I worked first as project manager and then as project area coordinator.

At the time, the organization’s activities were highly dependent on funding from the Italian government for development cooperation ( current AICS ), who at that very time were entering a particularly tight phase. Therefore, I had to make an effort to diversify the sources of funding of my NGO and thus present my first European project.

 

Q.How did it go with your first project?

R. The way European projects were submitted then was very different from today. There were no calls for proposals: it was the NGOs who prepared their projects independently, which were then refined with the help of a dedicated liaison and support body for Italian NGOs in Brussels. This body facilitated NGO contacts with European Commission officials (“desks”) in charge of a specific country. A meeting between NGOs and the “desk” was also sometimes held, where project funding was agreed upon. This shows how much the way European projects are conceived has changed over the years.

A turning point occurred between 2000 and 2001, with the the establishment of EuropeAid . Under the auspices of the then Commissioner Poul Nielson , the European Commission ( chaired by Romano Prodi ) made the choice to abandon this system, which is based on micro-projects submitted spontaneously by individual NGOs. In the interests of consistency and efficiency, an intervention planning process was established. A process based on the active role of the various EU Delegations, created precisely in those years (devolution); and to which NGOs and institutions in the various beneficiary countries were called upon to contribute (decentralization).

This process (which had already been tested in the context of humanitarian aid ) è the same one that still exists today and involves annual and multi-year planning, publication of calls for proposals, and submission of projects in response to calls for proposals.

 

D.A true Copernican revolution. How did you respond to this change?

R. This change was an important step in the process of “professionalizing” European external cooperation projects. Since then, the European Commission has built more complex procedures and parameters and raised the quality criteria required for project funding. The framework defined by this change unites (and even, perhaps, defines) the different areas in which europlanning and europlanners operate today. Similar criteria and procedures exist today in all areas of europlanning, not just development cooperation.

Larger, more organized “contractors” and NGOs have been able to adapt to this change by including in their staffs people who specialize in project writing; and people on the ground who can liaise with EU Delegations and institutions in the beneficiary countries. Other organizations came into difficulty and were faced with a choice between organize internally, or associate through specific hubs of aggregation.

This is the choice still facing an organization that is serious about approaching the field of europlanning.

 

D. What were your first calls for applications?

R. For more than a decade I have been working on projects for NGOs in the field of development cooperation, before and after the “Copernican revolution” introduced by the system of programming and calls for proposals. Specific calls and funding for this type of action then referred to a specific thematic line, known as “B7-6000” and active since 1976.

The introduction of a true European program dedicated to non-state actors and local authority arrivals in developing countries has resulted in greater coherence between EU and NGO action in individual countries. This program has evolved to become today’s one of the programs of the “thematic pillar” of Global Europe (NDICI) .

For those who would like to retrace the historical stages of this path, it is still possible to consult:

Everything that came after that is, so to speak, current events.

This gives you an idea of the frame of reference at the time, of the first point of view from which I began to approach the world of europlanning.

 

D. Speaking of viewpoints, the world of Europlanning for you is … an elephant. Can you explain the metaphor?

R. The metaphor is not mine, but it is inspired by an ancient parable , of Indian and Buddhist origin.

Eurodesign is similar to an elephant, which is approached by some blindfolded men who have never seen an elephant up to that point and who are asked to define what an elephant looks like. Those who touch the tail will say that an elephant looks like a large rope, those who touch the ears will say instead that it is actually a large fan, those who touch the legs will say it is rather like a tree trunk; and so on.

The same happens to those who approach europlanning by maintaining a focus on only one type of funds and programs – on thematic EU programs, structural funds or other parts of this big “elephant.” Each part actually represents a different world and way of working, but it is very important to be able to recognize one “animal” behind the individual specificities.

The wholeness of the “elephant” lies in the path that links together institutions, policies, funds and programs, programming documents, calls and projects. The experience of the projects (this is very important) must in turn go back to the institutions for policymaking and a new programming cycle.

Many europlanning courses and many europlanners do not grasp these aspects and develop a narrow view of the world of European projects. They can have difficulty in navigate in unfamiliar parts of this “elephant”; or approaching European projects in a utilitarian way, as a mere source of funding, rather as part of broader process, creator of content of great civic, if not political (in the noblest sense of the word) value.

In my elephant’s eye view, programs and funds dedicated to external cooperation (which I call “extra” programs and funds) occupy a specific position because they have different logics and modes of operation from the “intra” funds and programs (intended primarily for EU countries). The “extra” programs are intended for the development of very different countries, apply varying EU policies depending on the country, and are based, as mentioned above, on principles of devolution and decentralization.

This specificity is well explained in the two new chapters of your Guide, but it deserves to be taken up in its general structure as well.

 

D. So you also had difficulty recognizing — tusks and proboscises?

R. Absolutely, and it is from this experience that I developed my personal image of the elephant. Since 2003 I have served as director of the Brussels office of one of Italy’s largest federations dedicated to civil society organizations.

In this capacity I had to learn to recognize and to navigate parts of the elephant that I was not familiar with, particularly those related to “intra” funds and programs. Up to that time, European projects for me were “funds given to NGOs to carry out actions in developing countries”; but by that time I was beginning to understand that there was more to it than that. The language was different, as were the procedures, policies, interlocutors, and DGs of reference. He looked for all intents and purposes like a different “animal.”

I therefore enrolled in a europlanning course: and this was, on closer inspection, my first contact with the term “europlanning.” The course told me and explained a different reality from what I knew. A reality composed of many thematic policies and a multitude of funds and referral programs. But even in this case, I came up against a partial vision of the elephant, different from my own but not yet complete; a limitation I subsequently encountered in many other europlanning courses as well. I overcame it only gradually and with experience, which allowed me to learn about both the non-European and intra-European worlds.

However, that Europlanning course was a very important step in my learning journey and in doing my work in Brussels on intra-European calls and projects.

Starting in 2006, when I began directing ISPI’s Master’s program in International Cooperation, I wanted to transfer the global vision I had acquired into the europlanning course, to make students able to see the globality of the world of europlanning and to easily orient themselves In all parts of this “jungle.” A vision that we now try to convey by collaborating with you in the implementation of the specific Europlanning course within the Master’s program.

 

D. Your new role in Brussels went beyond writing European projects.

R. That’s right. My placement within a federation present in Brussels certainly exposed me to the world of projects, but also to the world of policy. It is this experience that allowed me to see clearly the importance of “making policy” when working in the world of europlanning.

“Making policy” with europlanning has a double meaning. It represents first and foremost a civic duty of active European citizenship: European projects involve using funds from European taxpayers to test, through projects, solutions that can be useful to the entire European community, and in our case to neighboring countries, those part of the enlargement process, and so-called third countries. It is therefore important that this experience goes back up (to institutions that can learn from the experience, benefiting policy and the entire citizenry) and is shared (with like-minded organizations that can replicate the experience, refine it and develop it further).

“Making policy” also has an operational significance, equally important. If (trivializing to the max) we consider European funds as an “ATM” that allows NGOs to finance their activities, then participating in the policy debate in the community arena allows one to define (or at least understand) the contents and methods of accessing the “ATM” from which one will have to draw.

In other words: the moment European projects are developed with a sufficiently broad policy vision, and the moment this vision moves up the rungs of institutions and the organization’s experience is exchanged and discussed, then the organization doing europlanning has a double benefit. He has a moral benefit, because it used European funds in the right way; but it also has a practical benefit, because its contribution to the debate allows it to guide programming, or at least predict its directions and move accordingly. The organization already knows what “can work” and think of a good project before the notice even comes out. He shows up at the “ATM” as a “partner in the bank” — already being able to expect what will come out of it.

 

D. This is all very interesting. But is it really within the reach of an NGO?

R. It sounds complicated, but this is the correct and most effective way to do europlanning. Europlanning is not a “diligence assault” to acquire funds, as is unfortunately usually understood. Its success is measured not only by the funds acquired, but also by how well it has been able to contribute to European policies: through its umbrella organizations of reference, participation in the green books and to the white papers, input and feedback provided to institutions through the appropriate channels. They are two closely related “measures of success”: one supports the other and one does not last long without the other. “Stagecoach assault” is not an enduring, and I would even say correct, technique of using European funds.

True, all this expresses a great conceptual leap, but it is important to bring it out: europlanning itself expresses the highest levels of what I have previously called “active European citizenship.”. Organizations that do europlanning are both implementers of policies and “intermediate social bodies” that take action to define them. They are not (or should not be) “free-riders” who approach the lender with the sole purpose of obtaining funds.

This is the (very noble) concept of “lobby” emerging from a correct and effective way of understanding Europlanning and European funds. This is what community institutions expect and reward in project evaluation.

 

D. How is it possible to accomplish this for any organization, perhaps a small one?

R. It is possible and useful, and I have had first-hand experience of the “how,” just as part of my experience in Brussels. I was part of a federation representing a network of small associations in Brussels. Associations referred to our office for two main aspects: for information on policies, calls and for support in planning activities; but also to participate in the debate on European policies, staying regularly updated and providing their input.

I was mainly concerned with social issues related to labor and migration. Our office also, in this, was not working alone, but in a network and through additional sector-specific organizations and specific channels of representation. The reference platform for our work was the “ Social Platform “, the largest European organization in the field that brings together dozens of members: in most other “umbrella organizations” like ours, each carrying its own specific expertise in social work and its own specific thematic network.

This is discussed extensively on the European Commission page dedicated to social: for the European Commission and the EU institutions, structures such as the Social Platform and its members are interlocutors important, not mere “extras” without depth.

The Directors General of the DG of the European Commission were coming to the meetings of the Social Platform taking notes on what was being said, regarding needs, ideas and priorities in the different areas of social work.

The same was true for major initiatives organized by Social Platform members: actions of visibility and advocacy, campaigns, meetings, and production of materials aimed at “nurture” European policies. These actions and notes went to condition policies, and thus upstream programs, and thus calls. They were living part in the process of policy, program and call formation, they were not passively undergoing it. Members of our federation were aware of this and could get “in the ATM queue” and start thinking about their projects with some knowledge, in advance of those who were not part of these structures.

This is a process and structure that exists in all sectors, especially those related to NGO activity, and accessible to all NGOs. Through these channels you can have information from Brussels, representation in Brussels, your own voice in Brussels, even for the little ones. And through these channels it is possible, even for young children, to contribute to European project policies and programming.

The important thing is to find the best “landing point” related to one’s field of operation, there are hundreds of them. For example, Foundations and the world of philanthropy have Philea (Philanthropy Europe Association), the result of the merger of two similar organizations, Dafne (Donors and Foundations Network) and EFC (European Foundations Centre). The latter moreover led for some years. Massimo Lapucci, Secretary General of the CRT Foundation. But similar examples can be given in all areas.

The umbrella organizations and platforms present in Brussels are the first of the “landing points” for NGOs but not only: the same applies to associations, universities, research centers, etc. And they are privileged interlocutors of the European Commission, but not only. The EESC for example (European Economic and Social Committee), is another of the important channels for bringing civil society action and interests to the policy level. The CoR (CoR) is a similar channel for local and territorial authorities.

The same goes for the Permanent Representation of Italy to the European Union (commonly known as “ItalRap” ), which deals with everything of interest to Italian institutions and organizations in the European forum and (in particular) the preparatory work for Council meetings. It therefore performs a very important “interface” work, on the one hand to Italian institutions and organizations, and on the other hand to EU policies. All European legislation passes through the hands of ItalRap, and the documents it prepares are, in most cases, only formally approved by Italian representatives in the Council.

 

D. A long and very interesting course. We had started from the development cooperation projects and arrived at the Council decisions.

R. That’s exactly right, and it’s important to understand how all the parts of this big elephant, seemingly so different, are connected.

Development cooperation projects also have to do with the representative role of the organizations-umbrella. The one dedicated to the development aid sector is called CONCORD and is actually a much larger, more organized and differently structured evolution of the liaison body that used to help NGOs with European projects and relations with European Commission “desks”… a long time ago when the system worked very differently.

Development cooperation projects also (obviously) have to do with the role of the Council, the EESC and the CoR. Those who are involved in social work and participate in the Social Platform (addressing issues such as children’s rights, gender equality or social inclusion) may also be involved in development cooperation: in fact, some organizations participate in both the Social Platform which at CONCORD .

It is a world smaller and more interconnected than it may seem. And this applies to all aspects of European projects.

 

D. Rightly so, the world of development cooperation is also a “laboratory” from which ideas are born, then borrowed in other areas.

R. Certainly, Europlanning methodologies and tools circulate and are borrowed rapidly, in this interconnected world.

The Logical Framework for example, a pivotal tool in the world of Europlanning, originated in the 1970s-80s in the context of American development cooperation ( USAid ). Following this, he quickly established himself in the world of European development cooperation (EuropeAid). It is now a key interlocution tool among all participants in any European project (funder, lead, partner), summarizing its rationale and how to measure the results achieved (indicators and sources of verification).

Instead, the “Theory of Change” (Theory of Change), a tool widely used today in development cooperation, originated in the mid-1980s in the social sphere, with the basic idea that projects should intervene in root causes and produce structural changes (e.g., in social patterns and behaviors that cause violence against women), as well as tangible products and results (e.g., a shelter provides relief to some women victims of violence but does not solve the root problem).

The “new” Logical Framework template , introduced in 2018, constitutes a kind of “hybridization” between the two tools, the Logical Framework and the Theory of Change. It includes everything found in the “historical” Logical Framework model (Intervention Logic, Indicators, Sources of Verification, Conditions) with a greater level of detail (Baseline, Target Value, Actual Value) and with a greater focus on structural changes, implied in new terminology that refers to Impact, Outcome and Products to indicate General Objective, Specific Objective and Results.

The intentions of this “hybridization” are interesting and positive. However, in many cases they are misinterpreted and misapplied in project design. They insert a element of complexity extra that can contribute to a further gap between small and large organizations, between those who have the operational capabilities to follow these changes and those who do not.

Also because in many cases the same process of monitoring and evaluation is not-and cannot realistically be-approached rigorously. For example, correctly filling the “baseline” column of a Logical Framework involves three possible options: 1) carrying out a study before the project has even started (which is often not possible due to lack of skills and resources); 2) estimating baseline data, with little scientific rigor; 3) postponing the establishment of a baseline until the start of the project (thus effectively circumventing the data request). And even at the time the project is initiated, only a minority of projects can devote resources to conducting a “baseline study” and updating it regularly, seriously and rigorously. We then know that without a reliable “baseline” and without a benchmark that can serve as a reference on the evolution of the phenomenon over time, it is complex and I would say not very credible to define an “end-line.” Overall, the result is an exercise that certainly manifests an intention to measure impact, and goes in that direction, but in essence reduces to a theoretical and formal exercise.

The whole process of monitoring and evaluation is intrinsic to the idea of Logical Framework and Theory of Change and is rightly perceived as an increasingly important: It is essential to be able to demonstrate that community resources, not used for a hospital or school, for example, have had a significant impact through the execution of a project. However, it suffers from a paradox: the more we try to be precise in measuring outcomes, effects and changes, the more it becomes necessary to rely on lax systems to do so, due to objective lack of data, lack of data collection capacity and lack of useful resources to do these exercises. Making the monitoring and evaluation process far less robust and accurate than one might (and should) expect.

There is no definitive solution to this problem.

Certainly it is necessary to be serious and understand potentials and limitations of all approaches.

It is also necessary to take action on another of the limitations faced by monitoring and evaluation activities: the design. If projects are “poorly designed,” with a crudely defined intervention logic, there is no point in applying overly sophisticated monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. A reasonably good measure of a project’s outcomes, effects and impacts first requires a good definition of them.

Finally, it is necessary to keep oneself continuously open to learning and improvement. You have to be able to raise your head in your daily work to progress and keep up to date. One should not concentrate all efforts in the simple “attack on the stagecoach”.

 

D. Updating, learning and improving: these are precisely the goals of ISPI’s Master’s in International Cooperation, correct?

R. That’s right. The Master’s in International Cooperation reaches its 17th edition with the year 2022-2023, thanks in part to the contribution of the Cariplo Foundation-which is also a partner in your Guide.

These are the last days for those who would like to register: the registrations are open until September 14 and an Open Day online on September 7 . Online selection tests will take place on September 20-21, 2022, and the Master’s program is scheduled to begin on October 10, 2022.

The master’s program provides the skills and tools to work in the fields ofhumanitarian aid and development cooperation. Provides for several months of web-live classes, lectures in the classroom starting in January, a study tour in the field and an internship operational duration of between 3 and 6 months. The training has an operational focus: it is filled with exercises and group work, simulations, case studies, role-plays, and online meetings with experts working in the field in different fields.

It is not (for the avoidance of doubt). a Master’s degree in Europlanning but a Master’s degree in International Cooperation, but includes within it a Europlanning Course (by the Guide staff) and touches on Europlanning issues from various perspectives. After all, development cooperation covers various thematic areas (health, education, nutrition, infrastructure, rights, gender, communication, etc.), is typically carried out through projects, and altogether represents (cooperation + humanitarian aid) almost a quarter of the European funds Directly managed (91 billion euros). Funds to which are added funds not directly managed by Europe and “non-European” funds, such as bilateral cooperation funds of the countries united in the OSCE DAC Committee. .

The master’s program is aimed to students of all ages, working and non-working, with a propensity for international action and possible thematic experience in one of the many areas in which international cooperation intervenes.

I hope that my experience, and why not, attending the Master’s program, can give insights to the readers of your Guide, a tool that we appreciate and are happy to help improve.

Good luck and keep up the good work!

YOU MIGHT ALSO BE INTERESTED IN: