Experience in Twinning
12 years of institution building in practice
Dr Frits van Vugt
Disclaimer:
This document is based on my personal experience
in many EU Twinning projects, implemented in a number of countries and over a
period of 12 years. The text reflects my personal views. It is in no way a
reflection from the official views of the Netherlands’ or EU authorities and
bodies. It is exactly my intention not to let my writing be influenced by the
limitations of what is “politically correct”.
Den Haag, April 2013
Contents:
The document is divided in three parts: part one,
General considerations, reflects on Twinning operations at a higher level of
abstraction. Part two, Management & Planning, contains specific
observations, summarises experiences and recommendations on an operational
level. Part three focuses on some very specific aspects of logistical nature.
To allow for an easy access to the information the text of part one is accompanied
by short remarks and conclusions on the
right hand of the page. The right hand column in this way represents the
executive summary. A short introduction (page 3) describes my personal
motivation and inspiration for the work as project leader of Twinning projects.
Part four is a compilation of personal anecdotic observations: it is to serve
as an illustration of what this work is about, how theory relates to practice
of daily life.
Introduction
General considerations
Management & Planning
Logistical issues
Anecdotic observations
Notes
Guidance to readers:
- “Twinning” and “Twinning projects” points
exclusively to those projects that take place under the EU Twinning program:
the projects are carried out as government-to-government projects, have to
comply strictly with the Twinning Manual[1]
and receive subsidy from the EU Commission.
- Beneficiary country points at the target country
of the project: candidate country or future associate country (European
Neighbourhood Policy, ENP)
- Member State (or Member States) points at the EU
Member States that are supporting the Beneficiary country through the Twinning
project
- When I refer to “he” in the text this should be
read “he or she”. In the same way “his” should imply “her” as well.
Abbreviations:
BC |
Beneficiary Country: the country which is
expected to be upgraded and supported by the twinning cooperation |
EU |
European Union |
FVO |
Food and Veterinary Office of the EU |
MS |
Member State of the EU |
PL |
Project leader |
RTA |
Resident Twinning Advisor |
SANCO |
EU Commission DG Health and Consumers |
STE |
Short Term Expert |
Introduction
Participation in EU Twinning projects is to be considered as a regular
task of government institutions. Twinning projects offer a framework to the
national governments to share their experiences with governments of other
countries, strengthen the international networks and contribute to the
development of civil service.
On a personal level I have found great satisfaction in performing the
task of leading Twinning projects. I have found strong personal motivation in
this work because it offered me
possibilities to contribute to the development of accountable civil
service.
Twinning cooperation between countries is about institution building,
is to assist the creation of governing structures that contribute to a
transparent, democratic society. It builds infrastructure and transfers
knowledge and ideas that will improve honesty in trade, a predictable environment
for the public and the producer, create mechanisms of control and
countervailing power. For a society to be mature it needs a civil service that
is responsible, just, accountable and honest. Only in this way the people will
be able to shape their personal future and create better chances for themselves
and their children. In a nation’s perspective improvement of civil service
capabilities are to enable participation in the world community of nations, the
international “order” and interrelations. A sound and healthy civil service is
a prerequisite for any nation in the world to participate in the shaping of the
future, to be part of and contribute to the future of mankind.
The job of project leader in international cooperation aimed at
institution building gave me the impression that I could directly and rather
concretely contribute to these objectives. It has always been clear for me that
the goals can reach reality only on the longer term. For practical reasons the
choice is made for working in projects, with a tangible results, defined and
measurable goals to be reached. This offers the framework for the more abstract
objectives, that are much more difficult to define, that are more difficult to
measure. Those abstract objectives are about increasing accountability,
responsible behaviour, awareness of being part of a system of civil service and
the need to adhere to higher values then personal short term interests. It also
refers to awareness of the importance of communicative skills: how to be open
and to listen to the other. Competences that badly need development and support
are system awareness and strategic thinking. Notwithstanding practical and even
political realities a sound civil service needs awareness of continuity and the
necessity to serve long term interests of society.
The paragraphs that follow are based on my personal experience as
project leader of 12 large EU Twinning projects in a number of countries: my
views and the way I have implemented the task as project leader cannot be
separated from my personal career. A track record on the Twinning projects
completed and on my professional background is available on my website: www.fritsvanvugt.nl
Part 1
|
|
General considerations:
|
|
1.1 The
nature of Twinning projects |
|
According to Wikipedia Twinning is an institution building tool[2].
"Twinning is one of the principal tools of Institution Building
accession assistance. Twinning aims to help beneficiary countries in the
development of modern and efficient administrations, with structures, human
resources and management skills needed to implement the acquis
communautaire to the same standards as Member
States. Twinning provides the framework for administrations and semi-public
organisations in the beneficiary countries to work with their counterparts in
Member States. Together they develop and implement a project that targets the
transposition, enforcement and implementation of a specific part of the acquis communautaire."
Twinning was first launched in May 1998 and the European Commission has
concluded that the Twinning instrument is very successful in reaching its
objectives.[3] Twinning projects are structured on the basis of the principle of
cooperation between peers. In this aspect Twinning cooperation is
fundamentally different from a consultancy operation. Twinning brings together colleagues from inside governments. This
means that they can share experiences from inside and being colleagues from
the same background creates a basis of trust between the partners. At both
sides there is the notion of how realities are in a governmental structure:
the orientation on politicians, operation within the tasks, responsibilities
and particular risks connected to the role of government and public services,
the vulnerability towards Press, the relation to international bodies and the
international codes and practices. The consequence of this is that a Twinning partner, and this is
especially true for the Project Leader (PL), and somewhat less so for the
Resident Twinning Advisor (RTA), need to be ready to share experiences in the
policy game, in crisis operations, in the attitude how to relate to
“Brussels”, in a broader context than strictly covered by the Twinning contract
(the Work Plan). For a Project Leader it is necessary that he is able to
communicate with his partners at the levels close to the Minister, that he
has experience to be able to communicate effectively at high policy levels. Twinning projects aim at supporting Beneficiary country
administrations to harmonise with EU codes and practices. The basis of a
Twinning project is an area of deficiency, where the Beneficiary country is
not complying with EU codes and practices and therefore it needs support to correct
this. Often there have been assessment missions by DG SANCO or FVO in which
the gaps have been identified. This means that after the completion of a
Twinning (or a series of Twinning projects) there will be again an assessment
if the gaps have been filled and the deficiencies corrected. The Twinning partner, Member State(s), therefore acts as a partner
from within the EU to support the Beneficiary country in explaining how to
deal with EU requirements and reach the state of conformity in such a way that
EU (officials) will be satisfied. The Member State partner should not operate
as a critical evaluator of the Beneficiary country, should not take the role
of an Inspector. Most of all it is to be realised that the attitude should be
avoided which is seen often in EU Commission officers: they often implicitly
seem to say: “we know what is good for you and you have to obey our
rules”. The Member State partners
should act as “trusted counsellors”, working in a confidential atmosphere in
which open discussions can take place. In case the Beneficiary country
partners get the impression that the Member State partners act as secret eyes
and ears of the EU the basis of trust and confidentiality is lost. The
primary loyalty of the Member State partners in Twinning needs to be with the
Beneficiary partners. The Work Plan and Contract of a Twinning also reflects this
atmosphere: when the Beneficiary and the Member State(s) have reached
agreement, the EU will often step back and approve without too much
interference. For anything formal in the relationship between the three
parties, Beneficiary country, Member State(s) and EU, the first step is
always that the Beneficiary and the Member State(s) reach agreement. The next
step is that they, together, address to the EU. The consequence of this arrangement is also that the team of
Beneficiary and Member State(s) together are responsible towards the EU for
the project results and achievements. In a consultancy agreement the
consultant is responsible for delivering: services or materials. In Twinning
both partners together are responsible for all results to be achieved. If
there is a result specified in the Work Plan to be achieved by the
Beneficiary Country, the Member State will not be able to hide away for not
achieving this result. Upon evaluation of the project achievements, the
Member State(s) will be held accountable for not reaching this objective as
well. The spirit of a Twinning operation is one of joint responsibility in
which partnership the Member State(s) is considered the “elder brother”, who
is also held accountable for what the younger brother needs to do. This
aspect is of course not made explicit in the contractual agreement, however
we need to be aware of this reality: if something goes wrong in a Twinning
project it is the Member State side that gets the blame. (as an experienced
EU Member it should know the way and the pitfalls, “Noblesse oblige”). This
aspect will be underestimated when a Twinning operation is considered in the
same spirit as a consultancy. |
Definition of Twinning
Twinning is nót consultancy. PL and RTA need to be able to communicate effectively at Minister’s
level. The basis of a Twinning is an area of non-compliance with EU law
& practice, a gap in the implementation of regulation and control in
comparison with EU practice. The Twinning partner is nót an EU
inspector but a peer expert and trusted “colleague”. Beneficiary country and Member State are jointly responsible for the
project results. The MS partner is considered by the EU bureaucracy as “more
responsible” since the MS partner is the more experienced.
|
By nature working in a governmental area, especially one which is
prone to crises, like the food safety and the veterinary field, means that a
carefully planned working schedule may be interfered by unexpected events.
Political developments, like unforeseen elections, will also seriously
disrupt the implementation of the project planning. More than in the Western
European administrations a political change in Eastern countries or in
Northern Africa and the Middle East will affect a considerable number of officers
in the higher levels. In fact a large number of people in the Beneficiary
organisation will be preoccupied about their position. This will lead to
disinterest in the original activities as identified in the Work Plan. In such situations the options for the project management are: - shifting activities to another time, postponing some and
reschedule others - adapt the subject: for instance if in the project it was foreseen
to work on Foot and Mouth disease, but the Beneficiary country is confronted with
Classical Swine Fever, then work on that disease. Flexibility and addressing
the needs of the Beneficiary is paramount. It is wise to keep in mind that at the side of EU bureaucracy the
possibilities for “flexibility” may be limited: for instance regarding
extension of the project implementation. When the project cannot be finished
within the time frame foreseen, this is considered the consequence of bad
planning and bad management on the Member State’s part. |
Planning of the project is detailed in the Work Plan, however always
be ready to adapt the activities to meet with urgent and direct needs at the
Beneficiary side (crisis or political developments) Crisis, unforeseen political events require flexibility[4].
However if the project is not finished according to the planning and time
schedule of the Work Plan, this will be blamed on the MS side as bad planning
and bad management. |
1.2 Conceptualisation of the Twinning project |
|
A key issue in the process of realisation of a Twinning project is
the phase of negotiation of the Work Plan. Although often in the Twinning
fiche a rather detailed account of activities is given, it is worthwhile to
review this together with the Beneficiary and the EU Delegation. Considerable
time may have elapsed since the writing of the fiche, so the priorities may
have changed. Some objectives may have been realised already and changes in
key staff at the Beneficiary side may have shifted their interest.
Furthermore, it is to be noted that also at the side of the Member State(s)
valuable input can lead to new ideas for the project at the side of the
Beneficiary. Not always the fiche is well structured nor is it always
well-conceived. The negotiation of the Work Plan is the ultimate chance to
realise a shared vision on the Twinning project results to be reached, to let
the Beneficiary country optimally benefit from the experience the Member
States have to offer. When the negotiation is merely an administrative
exercise in which the fiche is followed in detail, there is a missed chance.
In the negotiation the partners meet, exchange views and ideas, identify
common goals and become inspired for the project. The negotiation should
yield consensus between the partners and build commitment and confidence at
both sides. |
The negotiation of the Work Plan is a chance to review the issues
mentioned in the project fiche and to develop a shared vision on the key
issues for the implementation of the Twinning. |
Often the key persons in the administration of the Beneficiary
country have high ambitions: they dream of reaching the level of the “old”
Member States within the time span of one Twinning project. They are
attracted by the level of sophistication existing in the Member States and
often they are also attracted by the efficiency and cost effectiveness. An
idea of transferring responsibility to producers to alleviate the pressure on
the governmental services is attractive for them in times of budgetary
restrictions. In reality the situation in the Beneficiary country often
reflects the situation that existed in the “old” Member States half a century
ago. This gap cannot be bridged in a few years. The level of knowledge and
motivation, let alone the cultural preconditions, in the Beneficiary country,
both at the inspectors’ level as well as with the producers does not allow
the sophisticated approach as it is practicable in the advanced Member
States. It is wise to keep in mind during the negotiation of the Work Plan that
ambitions of the project need to be realistic in terms of the context of the
Beneficiary country. In setting the goals of a Twinning project it is
important to keep in mind how the situation in the Member States developed
over time. |
The negotiation of the Work Plan should maintain realistic
objectives: it is management of expectations. It is unrealistic to expect that a given Beneficiary country can
reach in a one and a half year project what an “old” Member State took 50
years to realise. |
For this negotiation to be effective and to
build a firm basis for the project the Project Leader at Member State(s) side
needs to play a key role. This is the forum where he establishes his
authority over the project, where he shows he is on the steering wheel. His
authority will depend greatly on his skills as a communicator, a visionary
and charismatic leader and an inspiring project director. It is important to
keep a close contact with the beneficiary country project leader during the
negotiations. The position of the Member State project leader is not an
administrative job: the Member State project leader is the person in charge,
the decision maker. He needs to be well qualified for and proficient in all
the key functions in project management: represent the project, have a vision
on how the overall goals are to be reached, perform management of
expectations. He needs to know what it is all about, although of course a lot
of specialists as Short Term Experts (STE) will participate in the project.
The Member State project leader needs to know the context, needs to have a
clear view of what is expected from the STE’s, needs to have a view if the
project activities have effectively contributed to the project goals as
planned. It is vital that he has excellent communication skills, has the
capacity to effectively reach different audiences and is able to have an
effective discussion up to the highest political levels. In my personal view the Member State project leader should in fact
perform a number of expert missions in the project as well. When the Member
State project leader visits the Beneficiary country only on a quarterly
basis, to participate in Steering Committee meetings, he is not doing a right
job. The Member State project leader needs to be fully involved in the
substance of the project. It should be noted that the Member State project leader represents
not only his institution but also and in the first place and foremost he is
representing the Member State. In case there is a Consortium (see also 1.3.3)
he represents also the junior Member State. This applies to both the
qualitative and quantitative aspects. In Western European countries we accept
that a project leader can be a management professional: in the East and the
South we have to realise that a project leader should have authority on the
“subject” of the project: for a project in the animal health area only a
veterinarian as PL is likely to be accepted. (see also paragraph 4.7.) |
In the formulation of the Work Plan the PL of the Member State
establishes his position as the leader and inspirator
of the project.
The success of the PL depends on his abilities as - team leader - partner who is able to oversee the broader context of the project
and who has the ability to be a partner in discussions at high political
level - diplomat - communication skills.
The PL at Member State side should show a high level of involvement
with the project. The Member State PL represents the Member State and carries the full
responsibility for all the input and contributions in the project. |
At the MS side the team of PL plus RTA constitute the backbone of
the project. They need to have an intensive (almost daily) communication and
they need to share view and opinion on the project issues. Both PL and RTA
should invest heavily in their contact. The team will only be effective when
there is mutual trust and “chemistry”. The professional profile required for the RTA is roughly dependent
on the nature of the Twinning project: a project with a large (> 1 M €)
budget will imply that there will be large numbers of STE. The RTA by
consequence will have very much a managerial role. He will need to make a lot
of connections inside the BC administration, arrange meetings, identify
relevant BC counterparts. His input into the project will not be much of technical
nature. In a Twinning project with a rather limited budget (< 0.5 M €) it
is likely that not many STE missions will be foreseen: so the RTA will be
expected to deliver a considerable part of the specialist technical input. In general, in addition to the professional aspect, the competences
of the successful RTA are: -
authority
from the professional angle regarding the subject of the project -
diplomatic
attitude -
ability to
work in isolation, far away from home (in many respects), emotional stability -
ability to
work in a cultural environment highly different from that in the home
country, ready to adapt -
flexible
attitude and ready to improvise. |
The PL and RTA at MS side must be a good team. The profile of the RTA is highly dependent on the characteristics of
the Twinning project. Selection of the right candidate for the position of
RTA deserves careful attention. |
1.3. The steps in
establishing a Twinning project The process from the decision to apply[5] for
a given Twinning project to the actual start of the project takes
considerable time: often more than a year. In this process several steps are
critical. |
|
1.3.1. - the dossier that is to be submitted as proposal. The
dossier has to be structured in accordance with the guidelines (Twinning
Manual, endnote 1). It is important that the dossier is concise and clearly
indicates the objectives of the project and the results that will be
obtained; the wording should nót be copied from the
project fiche, but it should be formulated in such a way that it shows that
the applicants clearly understand what it is all about. In the same line it
can be important to add issues, views, comments from the part of the
applicants. An attempt should be made to make an analysis of the project
issues that can be read “between the lines”: what is the political context of
the Twinning project? What are the potential tensions in the system in the
Beneficiary country? It would be useful to read (recent) FVO reports (both
country reports as well as reports from inspection visits are useful sources
and are available at the site of FVO [6]) on
the Beneficiary country and the institutions involved. It can also be useful
to ask The Netherlands’ Embassy for inside information. Meticulous preparation
in this way shows that the applicants are familiar with the issues of the
project, are offering added value and do not just follow the fiche. The MS PL
should have developed his own vision on what is really needed in the
Beneficiary country; he should have in the back of his mind the critical
success factors he has identified for the project. In the formation of a consortium (see also
1.3.3.) take note of the political and diplomatic issues that may be relevant[7]:
the decision at the Beneficiary side could very well be influenced by
non-technical arguments. |
The dossier (proposal) to be submitted must follow the prescribed
format and it should be clear, concise and attractive to the reader. It
should have added value, points of interest for the BC counterparts. |
1.3.2. - the presentation of the Member State part. In Western Europe it is perceived as normal that a proposal is
brought forward by institutions and organisations. The people involved are
seen as representatives of their organisation. In the countries that are
potential Beneficiaries of Twinning the situation is often somewhat
different: the Twinning partners are taken much more as individual persons.
Acquisition of Twinning projects depends much more on the positive
“chemistry” between the Beneficiary officers and the Member State
counterparts. The presentation session should therefore allow for the
personal touch. The Project Leader and the RTA should show their personal
interest in the cooperation proposed. The Project Leader should show his
abilities in communication and management. Although there may be a tendency to have a large delegation on the
part of Member States, my preference is to keep the delegation limited to
those that really matter: the Project Leader and the RTA, when applicable the
junior project leader and in addition one diplomat. The diplomat could open
the input of the Member States’ consortium by introduction of the delegation
and underlining the importance that the Authorities connect to this Twinning
cooperation. After that he hands over the leadership of the presentation to
the Project Leader. The Project Leader should clearly show that he is the
master on the ship. This also means that the time schedule is followed
precisely: if the presentations take too much time, too much overlap, too
much uninteresting detail, this is a sign of bad management on the part of
the Member State project leader. Here the principle is WYSIWYG (What You See
Is What You Get). The presentation should leave adequate room for discussion.
It could be very beneficial if the discussion again adds to the views laid
down in the fiche. The presentation ideally should convince the Beneficiary delegation
that this offer is special, that the project leadership at Member State side
has personal commitment to the project and that they are ready for an open and
flexible cooperation. The Beneficiary side should have the feeling that they
have met people they can trust. For the presentation to impress the audience with a focussed and
professional approach: -
to be well
prepared it is advisable to meet well in advance of the presentation,
preferably the day before, to get through the procedure, discuss all issues,
have a rehearsal of the presentation and prepare for the questions that can
be expected -
make sure
the Powerpoint-presentation is swift and in good
order: make sure to have only one file with all the slides to be used in the
presentation -
take care to
have all the documentation from the slides also as hard copies -
before
entering the room make a clear order of battle: who is doing what
(distributing papers, business cards, installation of the USB in the laptop etc), seating arrangement -
at the end
stress that additional questions that may come up after the session will
gladly be answered by phone or e-mail -
for the RTA
it is especially important to say some words about his motivation to work in
this project in this particular beneficiary country. Also he should already
indicate if he is planning to move with his family to the Beneficiary country -
avoid any
duplications and unnecessary diversions. Avoid that people in the delegation
speak for just being heard -
take into
account that the time schedule for the presentations is often not followed
precisely: delays often occur and therefore keep time in reserve between the
scheduled presentation and your return flight. This also allows for the
presenting team to sit and reflect on the meeting: what went good and what
went wrong, what are the lessons to be drawn? |
The success of the presentation of the Twinning proposal depends on
the professional performance and is also very much influenced by the personal
aspects (charisma, personal “chemistry”). The MS Project Leader must be able to explain (in broad lines) how
the issues of the project have been solved in his own country and which major
obstacles had to be solved. He also should have a vision how the issues are
to be solved in the Beneficiary country. Recommendations for a professional performance. |
1.3.3. - The Member State
part may involve only one Member State. However there are compelling arguments to form a consortium
of two Member States. Reasons are: -
for the
Beneficiary country it is important to get acquainted with the situation in
more than one Member State in the area of the particular project. In the EU
often more possible solutions are acceptable regarding the implementation of
EU acquis. Also at the Beneficiary side it
may be important to avoid the impression that they are forced to copy the
situation in one particular Member State. The EU is a Community of quite
diverse Member States and a consortium better reflects and illustrates this
diversity. In accordance with this philosophy I prefer not to “subcontract’ a
specific part or component of the project to one of the Consortium partners.
In my opinion the best way is to build mixed teams of experts from the
Consortium to implement project activities. This will promote an integrated
approach in the picture presented to the Beneficiary counterparts. -
there may be
specific reasons of expertise for joining with another MS: a consortium
partner having a land border at the outside of EU (like Poland or the Baltic
States) may complement The Netherlands that has only air- and sea- borders.
Inclusion into the Consortium of “new” MS maybe an asset because they have
recent experience in adopting the EU acquis and with the processes involved in the transition
to a market economy. Additionally it may be important that specific MS’s are
familiar with the old USSR practices of inspection & control and with the
Russian language. -
the
formation of a Consortium is as well important for the Member States: it will
allow the Project Leader to tap from a larger pool of experts. Often the
number of experts available in one Member State on a given subject is (very)
limited. On top of that the need for a given expert in the Twinning project
may coincide with an unforeseen event (like an incident or even a crisis) in
the Member State. In such situation the management of the Member State
institution will understandably give priority to the national interests and
leave the Project Leader of the Twinning without expert. In an international Consortium involving sister institutions
the Project Leader will be much less vulnerable for such events. -
when a
Consortium is formed one Member State has the lead as senior partner. The
other Member State has the position of junior partner. In principle the
Member State providing the Project Leader is the senior partner. There is no
compelling reason that the RTA is provided by the senior partner: I have
often worked with an RTA provided by the junior partner. -
in general a
Consortium of two Member States is favourable: a Consortium of three may be
considered, but it is perceived as more difficult from management point of
view: that is why this situation should be avoided. If need may be to have
experts from more than two Member States in a project it may be considered to
form a Consortium of two and take on board some specific experts from a third
Member State under the contribution of either the senior or junior partner. -
it is
important to note (again, see also above) that a Twinning is established
between Governments. A Government institution or body will be the
implementer, leading the operation from the Member State part, but this
institution is not itself the Twinning partner. Institutional setup and
organisation may differ from one country to another. Therefore it is not
uncommon that Twinning institutions do not have identical tasks and
responsibilities. In the Western European countries the organisational
principle in government is separation of policy and executive tasks. This
does not apply, maybe even very remote, to countries in the Eastern or
Southern regions. For this reason the Member State project leader needs to
represent the governing system in his country more than his institution of
origin (his employer in strict sense). To meet the needs of the Beneficiary
country the Twinning Member State part should involve often (if not always)
more than one institution or government body. |
For a number of reasons it is wise to offer the BC a Consortium with
another MS: a broader perspective on the implementation of EU requirements
inclusion of a specific partner because of advantages like: recent
experience with joining EU and transition from “old” Sovjet
style governing systems as well as familiarity with specific language
(Russian). flexibility for the PL to select STE from a larger pool One MS has the lead and therefore the final responsibility in the
Consortium. The management structure in the Consortium is important and should
be well thought of in advance. Arrangement of responsibilities of institutions is likely to be very
different from one country to another. Therefore Twinning should not be
considered from the perspective of one institution to another: twinning is
between national authorities. |
1.3.4. - Negotiation
of the Work Plan. After the decision by the Beneficiary country (together with the EU
delegation) the Member State consortium enters the negotiation of the Work
Plan. |
|
The basis of this negotiation lies in the fiche for the project and
the dossier submitted by the Member State(s). The Work Plan is the formal
contract on what will be realised in the project and what are the duties and
responsibilities of the partners. Several remarks are to be made: -
The
negotiation phase is implicitly the opportunity to review the project’s
objectives and results to be obtained. Although the fiche is the basis, it is
not to be considered as cast in concrete. I have often found room for
flexibility, when based on good argumentation. Also the set-up of the project
can be amended: basically this phase allows for a meticulous analysis and
update of what is the need of the beneficiary country and how can the needs
be addressed in the most effective way by the Member State partners. The role
of the Project Leader is not only to oversee the process, represent the
Member State(s) and assist the Beneficiary in clarifying its needs, but it is
also his prime responsibility to manage the expectations at all sides of the
table. Negotiation implies matching the needs with the possibilities, keeping
expectations, planning and necessary inputs within reasonable limits. Care
must be taken by the Project Leader not to go along with the euphoria that
may be around the table in which unjustified and unrealistic objectives are
uttered. (see also 1.5) Limiting factors at the Beneficiary side are very
often the limitations set by their manpower and management system: it is very
often relatively easy for the Member State(s) to infuse a lot of knowledge
into the project counterparts, but the problem arises for the beneficiary to
absorb the knowledge in an effective way: the absorption capacity is the
limiting factor. -
The Work
Plan is structured as a translation of the objectives, into Mandatory
Results, which are to be realised through concrete activities. This process
can be schematically represented: |
The negotiation of the Work Plan needs a high level of attention: - it is the best opportunity to build mutual understanding and trust
among the twinning partners - it is the chance to optimise the project approach and project
activities to give the best guarantee for a successful and practicable
project implementation - the negotiation is nót about price[8], it
is about realising the best possible match between BC needs and expectations
on one side and the possibilities the MS has to offer. |
In the Work Plan the project content has to be described exactly in
terms of a detailed Log frame. For the Mandatory Results care should be taken
that they are defined in terms which are manageable for the project leaders
from both sides. Results that are dependent on political factors, like
approval by the Parliament or even on the decision of the Minister, are to be
avoided: politicians have their own agenda and priorities, which are outside
the influence of the project management. In this respect it is important to
realise that in the Beneficiary country the layer of “politicians” may be
much larger then in western EU countries. It is often not only the Minister
and his deputy that are politicians, but even down to the level of Directors
of Departments and Services the officers are politicised, are heavily
dependent on dynamics of political parties and they may have a political
agenda. |
|
1.4. Cultural aspects |
|
The negotiation of the Work Plan will be the first major operation
where the Project Leader and his staff will meet the cultural environment in
the Beneficiary country. There are a lot of issues pertaining to the (often
very) large cultural difference between Western (“old”) EU Member States and
the Beneficiary countries. In the Member States the concepts of project
management are familiar and widely accepted. Among them: output financing
with budget allocations based on cost estimation and project evaluation based
on results achieved. In the Beneficiary countries time management is often
not an issue. Civil servants are not aware of their responsibilities (or they
have none) and they have a low awareness of how their position is related to
the functioning of the organisation as a whole. Hierarchy is strong and
structures are rigid. As a consequence people tend to evade taking decisions.
All decisions are shifted upward: the office of the “boss” is full of papers
to be signed and people are running in and out. The result is that the boss
is not able to function because he is constantly involved in taking even the
smallest decisions in the organisations. We have to be aware that “uneasy”
and uncomfortable information will not reach the boss. Only favourable and
positive information is likely to be passed on to him. It is tempting to
speculate that this is caused by the culture of “blaming”. If something goes
wrong, there is somebody who has to be the culprit. In fact this culture is
quite counterproductive because it prevents the organisation to be a “learning organisation”. An open attitude
towards evaluation and drawing lessons for the future would be beneficial,
but is often lacking. Evaluation of project achievements or policy operations
is therefore often impossible. A second important cultural difference between the Member State
partner and the Beneficiary will be the personal motivation: Member State
civil servants enjoy a much better position in the framework of job security
and salary. At the Beneficiary side salaries are often extremely low and
people can be fired from one day to another (or alternatively, they cannot be
dismissed, even if they do not show up at all). The low salaries often
necessitate civil servants to have parallel jobs after official working
hours. Also it should be noted that participation in a study visit abroad
will make available to them an amount of money from daily allowance provided
by the project budget, that matches for them at least an extra month salary.
The obvious consequence of the low salaries, low job security and bad
practices in human resource management will be that the civil servants at the
Beneficiary country are much more preoccupied with the question how to
survive with their family than how they can contribute to public service. The
difference in personal motivation between Member State staff and their
beneficiary counterparts may create misunderstandings jeopardising successful
project implementation. |
Twinning is an intensive cooperation to be realised in an
environment characterised by sometimes a large difference in culture. This
requires flexibility and understanding from both sides. Administrative
procedures, working attitude, professional backgrounds between partners may
be greatly different. Also communication may follow greatly different rules.[9] Each person from the MS-administration working in a Twinning has to
be prepared how to handle the cultural differences. Training courses and/or
adequate briefing could be useful. |
One way to look at the Twinning project is as a bureaucratic operation,
a project as an element of national policy and an agreement between the
Beneficiary country and the EU. However, successful implementation is highly
dependent on personal motivation: therefore it is a valuable principle to
identify as soon as possible, most likely during the negotiation phase, one
person at the side of the Beneficiary country who is ready to be really
committed to the project. This person must the one who can see the project as
“his baby”. Very often there has been somebody who has invested already a lot
in pushing the project idea through the phase of formulating the fiche and
the bureaucratic decision processes involved in launching the fiche.
Identifying this person and acknowledging his position as “father” of the
project, giving him all the credits, allowing him to have a crucial role in
the formulation of the Work Plan, will be of great help to make the project a
success. Any project may look from the outside as an anonymous operation, but
in reality it is a living thing and it needs continuous inspiration and
attention. It needs somebody who is ready to act from behind, to smoothen
ripples, somebody who is ready to take (some) risks, if necessary, and who is
really interested in the project and its results. The cultural difference also means we have to be aware of the fact
that the political atmosphere differs from that what we are familiar with in
Western European countries: in Western Europe democracies are functioning in
such a way that governmental institutions are perceived as being devoted to
serving the (civil) society. The civil servants are working from the
perspective of public interest. In the countries in Southern and Eastern Europe clientelism
is a familiar perspective (Fukuyama [10]). |
An important thing to be kept in mind in building the project
infrastructure is to have (at least) one person at the BC administration who
is really personally committed to the project and who is ready to invest all
attention needed, even behind the curtains. A project (any project!!) is
dependent on what real people do. |
The personal networks play a much greater role. Below the surface
there is always the “quid pro quo”
and the personal interest. By all means we have to stay far away from
practices of corruption. Personally I have never ever been confronted with
propositions that are to be considered as corruption. Nevertheless, when working in these countries we have to be aware
that personal connections definitely are important in the institutions of our
counterparts. Staying away from corruption does not preclude that it is acceptable
to bring a small present (a tin of traditional cookies or sweets) to the
counterpart from time to time. This will create a positive atmosphere which
is productive for the project work. Take to avoid controversial articles:
alcohol may not be welcome and neither are articles that could be subject to
import restrictions (cheese, flower bulbs). |
Corruption and clientelism is often
current and accepted practice in countries in the East and the South. It is
absolutely paramount that the MS officers stay away from those practices. |
Cultural issues are also very dominant in the communication. We, as
Dutch, have to be continuously aware of the fact that we have a very direct
way of communication. In our view being "direct" has a positive
connotation: it is considered “open”, honest, authentic. In many countries
around the world our "direct" way of communication is perceived as
rude. In contacts, be it workshops, negotiations, trainings or site visits,
we have to be constantly aware of the risk of being perceived as rude and impolite.
The partner may feel irritated and leave the contact in a very subtle way. In some cultures we may encounter a reluctance to interrupt the
(Western European) speaker. At the same time, we, from the West, take for
granted that when our partner does not follow us he will say so. This is not
always the case: I have found myself in negotiations in which I perceived a
misunderstanding at a certain point in time. Then I reconstructed the
discussion together with the counterparts and I found out they did not agree already
an hour earlier. It meant that I had lost the partner long before I actually
noticed. The lesson for me is to proceed cautiously and to make
recapitulations very often. This has to be done with much care and caution
not to offend the partner. The art of intercultural communication is connected to an attitude
of tolerance and respect, of building a bridge between our partner and
ourselves, of genuine human interest in our partner. We should be ready to
skip our goal- and result-oriented approach and to communicate on the terms
of our partner. The intricacies of intercultural communication is illustrated for
instance by Jitske Kramer[11]. |
Communication has to receive maximum attention. Rules and mores may be very different from what
we are used to in Western European countries. The negotiator in an
intercultural environment has to ask himself continuously whether he has
established "rapport" with his partner(s). |
1.5. General policy considerations |
|
Since Twinning is a cooperation between governments, it is in many
aspects an instrument of policy implementation both on the part of the Member
States involved, the EU and the Beneficiary country at the other part. As a
result of the Twinning project there will be changes in the national policy
at the beneficiary country, leading to an approximation, harmonisation or
even adoption of EU legislative principles. The Twinning Work Plan specifies
the concrete mandatory results to be achieved often in terms of adoption of
EU rules and regulations. It is important to be aware of the correspondence
with the local circumstances in the Beneficiary country. There may be a
considerable difference between the Beneficiary country and the EU Member
States as regards the infrastructure, organisation, stage of development and
cultural practices. EU legislation for instance aims at a high responsibility
with the producer: it is the producer that has to ascertain the safety for
the consumer in relation to his products and his production system. For this
to be realistic the producer needs to have a certain standard of operation
and the society in which he operates needs to be responsive, meaning that the
consumer preference and the market price the producer can realise justify the
expenditures in safety and quality. How can we expect a producer to make considerable
investments in quality control in accordance with modern standards of
operation when he has to place his products on a market that largely consists
of informal small scale transactions. How can we impose the principles of
hygiene code and HACCP on the production of cheese by shepherds that
traditionally takes place on the pastures in the mountains under primitive
circumstances? The sophisticated Western European systems of “own controls”
with the producers is highly dependent on the development of societal
infrastructure, the cooperation between the producers based on the awareness
of their common interests, the expectations of the public as regards product
safety, the consumer’s buying power. At the end of the day the consumer has
to value the (extra-)guarantees the producer is offering.
|
The identification of the goals of a twinning should take into
account very much also the development of civil society: the results to be
achieved have to fit into the “local” environment. Otherwise the project
results are not to be considered sustainable. During the negotiation of the
Work Plan it is important to keep an eye on the question if the results
agreed fit in the local context. |
In this same line is the dilemma that government policy to force
producers to comply with (advanced) EU requirements may force producers to
leave the formal market and shift activities to the informal circuits of
trade. This dilemma is realistic in countries where there is a large segment
in market occupied by the “informal” circuits. In food production this may
well be in the order of magnitude of two thirds or three quarters of market
share. When in such situations the government puts a lot of effort in forcing
the producers under official control to make serious investments in upgrading
buildings and installations, in adapting production methods, training and
quality control, this will lead to significant increase of production costs.
However, since these “quality” products have to compete on the market which
is dominated by products from informal sources, the investments may not be
valorised. This may inspire the producer to retract from operating under
official supervision and shift to the illegal, uncontrolled market segment.
In a situation where the streams of informally produced are large, this is
easy and simple. The net effect on safety of the products on the market in
general is negative: the government policy to increase the level safety has
the opposite effect. The first step is to realise that this effect may occur
and then it is important to draw up a mix of policy instruments that takes
into account that the increase in quality and safety of the products needs to
lead to a positive gain on the market. Although it may be rather remote under
the cultural conditions in the Beneficiary country, it is important in a
given Twinning project to place (joint) effort in establishing communication
with the producers. The objective of such cooperation with the producers is
to involve them in identifying the best way to upgrade product safety and
compliance with EU rules. This has to be a step-by-step approach in which
attention has to be paid to the interests of the producers to ensure their
compliance. |
|
1.6. General
recommendations on policy issues and sustainability |
|
Twinning cooperation projects tend to focus on
the EU acquis and legislation (institution
building) as well as on technical capacities (for instance laboratory
techniques). For project results to be sustainable I strongly recommend to
introduce into the Work Plan explicitly or implicitly activities that
address: |
|
- compliance: workshops and discussions
in which the producers and other stakeholders are participating to ensure
that the new legislation and procedures fit into the local situation and are
realistic, given the stage of development in the country. |
|
- evaluation as a tool for improvement
and learning. It is important to get away from the reflex to blame the
responsible officers and to create an open atmosphere in which lessons can be
drawn for the future. |
|
- training in "soft skills"
like project management (planning and control), communication, leadership
skills. This can very well be done in an integrated way with transferring the
technical substance of the project: develop roadmaps and implementation plans
in interactive sessions with the counterparts. |
|
- longer term perspective (strategic
thinking): the project results can be welded into a broader context document
or strategic agenda that shows which are the follow-up steps to be taken to
assure consolidation. During the project a strategic road map should be
developed and this needs to address also the financial issues (consequences
for the government budget) as well as organisational arrangements (shifts in
mandates and responsibilities between Ministries and other stakeholder
institutions). |
|
Part 2
Management & Planning:
2.1. |
Administrative procedures associated with the management of a
Twinning project may be complicated. The EU Twinning Manual (note 1) has to
be followed in detail and without compromise. Failing to do so will lead to
financial damage: if rules of the Manual are not obeyed refund from the EU
Twinning budget will turn out to be impossible. I strongly recommend to
include in the management team at the MS-side administrative professionals,
that are very well aware of what it takes to have an administration in compliance
with the Twinning rules, that are completely familiar with these rules and
the requirements. The EU bureaucracy allows for no compromise at all as far
as compliance with the Twinning rules are concerned. For instance replacement
of a Short Term Expert needs an official side letter duly signed by both
Project Leaders and processed before the actual mission of the expert.
Failure to do so results in no reimbursement of costs of the mission. The
administrative complications may be prevented to some extent by indicating a
number of STE with each activity in the Work Plan (or to combine activities
in such a way that they can be connected to a larger number of experts). In
this way a certain degree of flexibility can be created inside the project,
to replace experts without the need of formal change in the Work Plan (with
concomitant need for Side letters). Since many documents need to be signed by both the Project Leader at
Member State side and his counterpart at Beneficiary side, and this often
under pressure of time, it may seem attractive to delegate the power of
signature to the RTA, so that documents can be processed to a large extent in
the Beneficiary country. My personal view is nót to
follow this practice. For the Project Leader at the Member State side it is
important to keep track of what is happening inside the project: therefore I
recommend that he stays in the loop, notwithstanding the fact that the
procedures (sending documents from Beneficiary country to Member State and
back) are more time consuming. |
2.2. |
The budget of a Twinning project allows that the RTA has an
administrative assistant: this person is a national from the BC and functions
as an interface between the MS staff and the BC counterparts. In the Twinning
project a lot of work has to be done in translations: both translation of
documents as well as oral translation in meetings and trainings. The best way
to realise this is to have a translator in full service of the project: a
translator on permanent basis with the project will become familiar with the
often very specific terminology. The best way is to establish a bureau with
the RTA in which both the RTA assistant and the translator are housed and
where they can work as a team, if need may be to replace each other. |
2.3. |
At the Member State side Twinning operations should be budgetary
neutral: ideally all the costs should be covered by the project. From the
perspective of EU the funds allocated are to be considered a subsidy, which
is to cover the “extra” expenses made to implement the project: travel and
subsistence as well as a compensation for the cost of the salaries of staff.
In principle only those costs can be reimbursed that are directly associated
with activities in the other country. For the Member State partner this means
that only costs connected to activities in the beneficiary country are
eligible for reimbursement: activities like study visits, preparation of
missions, administrative costs in the Member State are nót
to be covered by the Twinning project budget. For the Beneficiary country the
costs of travel and subsistence associated with study visits abroad can be
recovered from the project funds. The Twinning Manual from EU describes into
detail which costs can be reimbursed. The Work Plan is accompanied by a formal
budget section, describing how the budget is used in the project. This budget
is to be considered the “external project budget”. [12]For
management purposes it is useful also to make an “internal project budget”.
In this budget the flow of funds inside the project activities is described
including the (re)allocation of money between project partners at Member
State side. Ideally the gross total of both budgets should be equal, so that
the project is “budget neutral” for the implementing organisation. |
2.4. |
According to the philosophy of the Twinning concept the budget of a
project under this program allows for a refund from EU only for those
activities that are implemented in “the other country”. So the costs for any
activities that take place in the Member State by Member State personnel are
not eligible for EU refund from the project budget. This is specifically
relevant when it concerns study visits by Beneficiary country staff to the
Member State. Costs for the Member State are to be covered by its own budget.
For this reason it is important to keep study visits as efficient as
possible: do not allow for individual study visits, because they will be very
costly from the point of view of time invested. It is better to receive
groups of visitors and offer them as much as feasible one uniform program.
Under special conditions the Twinning program may cover costs of training in
the Member State when it applies to a “standard training course”, in a
specialised institution. If arrangements can be made accordingly at least to
some extent costs of study visits can be reimbursed to the Member State
partner(s). |
2.5. |
Each Quarterly report needs the formal approval from the Steering
Committee. This also applies to the Final Report. At the same time this
creates a logistical complication with the completion of the Final report,
urging for a meticulous and deliberate planning in the final phase of the
project. It is therefore important that the final draft of the Final report
is prepared with appropriate input from as many Steering Committee members as
practicable. This will prevent too many (fundamental) changes to be made in
the final draft version: after short discussion in the Final Steering
Committee it can be agreed which adaptations still to be made for
finalisation. It has to be noted that the Final report needs to be ready and
submitted within three months after finalisation of the project activities.
Failure to comply may severely endanger the smooth financial finalisation. The process to reach an adequate finalisation of the project should
not be underestimated: therefore it is wise to keep the last one month in the
project planning without any STE missions, so that this time can be devoted
to administrative finalisation. Care must be taken that this one month is
still within the so called disbursement period: for each Twinning project the
EU bureaucracy has set a date after which no payments are allowed from the
project budget. This date is absolute: any payments effected after this date
are not eligible for reimbursement from the EU. |
2.6. |
A central role in the project is played by the Steering Committee.
In my view it is worthwhile to try to have a high Beneficiary country officer
as Chairman: preferably an official at the level of Secretary General or
Secretary of State. This will enable the project to be in the attention at
high levels and this is favourable for the commitment at the Beneficiary
counterparts. By all means the concrete management of the Steering Committee
needs to be in the hands of the project team: the RTA plus project leaders.
In my personal experience it is effective to have the Steering Committee act
in a strict role of decision makers for the project. As much as possible open
discussions should be prevented. Only those points are raised that already
have been discussed and precooked. Any more wide and open discussions are to
take place outside the Steering Committee: it could be useful to install in
the project infrastructure a Working Group on Strategic Issues: this working
group can be used for more open exchanges of views. From this group also
initiatives can be developed for workshops, general communication issues and
“think-tank” events. Preferably the Steering Committee meetings are limited
to one hour time. To assure political support for the project it would be advisable to
have a meeting with the Minister at regular intervals. Such meetings could
take place in connection with the Steering Committee to brief the Minister on
progress, politically relevant issues and issues that need resolution at high
level. Meetings with the Minister need careful preparation so that only those
issues are raised that attract Minister’s attention and not waste his time.
Wasting of this “high quality time” with the Minister will be detrimental for
the project at longer term. The Steering Committee meetings are to be held formally at quarterly
intervals. Each meeting will oversee the achievements of the preceding
period, as described in the Quarterly report. It is current practice that the
report is written by the RTA. Since the report is formally submitted by the
PL it is important that the PL has carefully read it. The Steering Committee
will also be presented with the planned activities for the next period: it is
important to give signals of possible problems in project implementation at
an early time to give the BC administration or the EU delegation an
opportunity to take appropriate measures. |
2.7. |
It is obvious that during the course of a Twinning project, often
between 18 and 24 months, circumstances change in the project environment.
Priorities may shift, people and organisations may change. Therefore it is
useful to have a Midterm review session: in this meeting the Twinning
team: PL, RTA, counterpart RTA, component leaders, project administrative manager, assistants
sit together and oversee the implementation so far. Questions are addressed
like: are we on track, which adjustments are necessary, budget depletion,
additional missions to be planned, satisfaction at beneficiary side, how to
finalise the project. According to the EU requirements any Twinning project
final report should pay attention to sustainability of the project results
and recommendations for follow up, if any. In my experience it is very useful
to prepare a clear and detailed agenda for follow up actions. Preparations
for such agenda, a strategic document have to start well before the closure
of the project to ensure ample time for discussions among relevant
participants and stakeholders. |
2.8. |
The basis of the project has been agreed in the Work Plan. This Plan
is structured according to the principles as laid down in the Twinning
Manual. When the project achievements are to be evaluated this will take
place starting from the Mandatory results and benchmarks defined in the Work
Plan. The significance of the benchmarks as a measure of project management
success cannot be underestimated. Therefore I recommend that at the beginning
of the project all the Mandatory Results or benchmarks are listed in a
schematic representation or a Table. In every Steering Committee meeting this
list is presented and progress on the completion of the items is noted:
progress can simply be indicated by a percentage of completion (0, 30, 60 and
100%) or even by just ticking as completed. This list will be a useful aid to
keep track of project realization. |
2.9. |
At the end of a Twinning project the number of documents produced
will be huge. All the documents and reports will be in the running archives
at the office of the RTA. However, as soon as the RTA leaves his job and
returns to his home country, and also the assistants leave the RTA office
infrastructure is lost. The result will be that the archives are
disintegrated as well. In my personal experience it is important to
consolidate the archives of all the project documents in electronic form and
burn them on CD (or DVD). Distribute several copies of the CD to key persons
and this will guarantee that documents can be dug up in the future. They are
a rich source of information to be used both in the Beneficiary country
administration as well as by the Member State partners when they are working
in other projects. |
2.11. |
During the course of a Twinning project a lot of activities are
carried out and in these activities the number of documents made available to
the beneficiary administration is likely to be huge. In fact all these
documents, with procedures, manuals, working instructions, policy papers and
many others are to be considered as knowledge transferred. So it is
worthwhile to list all these documents as project materials as project
achievements: they should be included on a list that is annexed to the Final
Report. For management purposes it is worthwhile to start with keeping this
list already at the very beginning of the project. At the end of the project,
at the time of preparation of the Final Report it may turn out to be
impossible to recuperate the list completely. |
2.12. |
Often at the end of a project the funds allocated have not been used
completely. This may lead to the wish to extend the project with some months,
performing some more detailed trainings, more elaborated support. This will
not be acceptable for the EU: either the project has reached its objectives,
and then no extension is required, or it has not reached its objectives and
then the project management is to be blamed. So if an extension is to be
realised new activities need to be identified; activities that
complement the objectives of the project and assure that more is reached than
originally foreseen. |
2.13. |
Very rightly EU Commission sends out monitoring missions to evaluate
Twinning project implementation. To enable EU to act proactively evaluation
may take place already during the implementation. The significance of these
evaluations, often carried out by private consultants, cannot be
underestimated. Therefore I recommend strongly that the Project Leader from
Member State side is engaged in the evaluation. This will enable him to
comment to the evaluator on the project achievements from the perspective of
his views and philosophy on the project content. A crucial aspect in these
evaluative discussions is also how the sustainability of the project
achievements is assured. The MS PL must have a vision on how he ensures that
the work done will not be lost after the project has ended: he should have an
“exit strategy”. This point also is of highest priority in the Final report
of the Twinning project. |
2.14. |
It is very practical and helpful for the STE visiting the
beneficiary country that they are provided with a standard document with
travel information. This document could accompany the Terms of Reference for
the particular mission. The travel document could provide information on
arrival procedures, visa, local currency and how to obtain, travel arrangements
from the airport to the hotel, restaurants in the neighbourhood and other
particulars. It may be useful that the STE is also provided with a paper with
the address of the hotel and the office in local language and scripture (for
instance Cyrillic or Arabic): this turns out to be critical because often
there is hardly any communication possible with taxi drivers. Especially for
the Project Leader and the RTA it will be extremely useful to purchase a copy
of Lonely Planet (or the like) for the particular country. This will
facilitate greatly to pick up local practicalities. Before the STE arrives he will need to have been informed about the
working schedules during the mission, the program etc. The first item should
always be a briefing meeting at the RTA’s office: in this meeting the RTA can
inform the STE (or all project staff present) about recent developments and
make arrangements on the program of the STE including a debriefing meeting.
Each STE should have a debriefing meeting before leaving the Beneficiary
country. In this meeting he will need to present his findings and conclusions
and he will be able to hand over his draft mission report. For the draft mission report a standard format should be made
available from the project. The draft mission report will only be converted
to final mission report after scrutiny by the RTA and formal approval by the
Project Leader. The (draft) mission report should be comprehensive,
to-the-point and should have distinct sections on conclusions, recommendations
and suggestions for further steps or activities. Make sure the draft mission
report is checked by the RTA or the Project Leader before it is presented
(widely) to the beneficiary counterparts: it may contain sentences that press
on sensitive issues in local perspective. It should be noted that at the end
of the day the Member State project leader is responsible for the content and
the quality of the STE mission report. In my opinion it is good practice that the STE does not leave the
country (and does not receive his signed mission sheet) without finalising
his mission report. Upon return to his home administration the STE is often
drowned in regular work again and this may shift the finalisation of the
mission report to some lower priority. Depending on the country it may be useful to pay attention to health
issues: sanitary standards may be low and the STE may not want to run the
risk of picking up a disease. Several preventive vaccinations can be obtained
at travel clinics and public health authorities in The Netherlands. |
2.15. |
According to the Twinning Manual the Beneficiary Country should
provide the project with office space, including adequate equipment. This
office is to house the RTA, the assistants and the STE for meetings and
project work. Often facilities offered were located in a remote area, with
the argument that office space was scarce. I have always insisted on an
office for the project which is near to the Beneficiary Country Project
Leader, near to the official decision makers. It is important to “be in
sight”, to be able to have informal contacts close to the real power. In the
same way the Twinning Manual specifies that the official language of the
project is English (or French). This means that all the formal documents and
reports of the project are compiled in English (or French). No funds are
allocated from the project to translate the reports in the Beneficiary
Country language. I would recommend to be flexible on this point: translation
of the project reports will increase the chances that it will be read in the
Beneficiary Country.[13] |
2.16. |
It is useful to keep an informal but nevertheless strong connection
with the MS Embassy in the Beneficiary country. This line of contact however
is to be maintained with some diplomatic precaution: the Twinning project
functions at the level between the Beneficiary country and the EU Commission.
The Twinning project is not an instrument of bilateral relations between the
Beneficiary country and the Member State(s) involved. In some cases a
representative from the MS Embassy may be participating in the Steering
Committee, although his position will be that of observer. |
2.17. |
Contacts to the Press are often highly politically sensitive.
Therefore this area should be confined to officers at the Beneficiary side.
Care should be taken that the Twinning Member State officers are drawn into
politically sensitive debates. Press is always looking for any information
that attracts attention, often bad attention. Information will be seen as through
a magnifying glass and caricatured. Often they will look for statements with
which the government administration can be criticised. |
2.18. |
When one has the ambition to become Project Leader in international
projects it may be useful to build a profile: an opportunity to do so is to
be speaker on international courses and conferences. This helps to extend
one’s network and to become “well known” with the relevant target groups. It
helps a lot when a member in a twinning selection committee at the
beneficiary side have been in the audience during a course or conference and
recognise you as a person who had an interesting and inspiring presentation.
Opportunities for such conferences are TAIEX events, courses organised by
national government in bilateral relations[14],
seminars in the framework of Embassy programs and many other. Participation
as a speaker in such events may well be a worthwhile investment. |
Part 3
Logistical issues
3.1
In most Twinning projects study visits of
Beneficiary Country officers to the Member State partner(s) are foreseen. It is
important to pay attention to some aspects.
- assure that there is ample time for
preparation: often the visitors need visa, the application of which may need
considerable time. Often participants from Beneficiary country side have no
experience with international travel: this may lead to unforeseen
complications in air travel and immigration. |
|
- visitors may well need particular attention
because of religious obligations: when they come from countries with a
predominant Islamic background they should be offered halal food during
lunches or dinners. When halal cannot be guaranteed make sure that at least
there is no pork on the table and no alcohol. Fish, chicken and cheese in
general will not create problems. |
|
- During the program of the visit time should be
allowed for the visitors to pray. In the time schedule flexibility in
planning is needed and there should be a quiet corner or separate room
available. Praying time will also be needed in a program of an event to be
organised in the home country (beneficiary) of the project. For visitors from
some countries it may even be difficult to be confronted with female officers
from our side: in general no problems will occur, however it is important
that the female participants from our side are prepared to avoid hand
shaking. In the contacts with Arabic countries it is also important to keep
in mind that sitting in such a way that the sole of the shoe is visible to
the other person is considered impolite. For all those issues it is advisable
for the PL and the RTA, because both are intensively visiting the BC, to buy
and read a book on the local habits as well as the BC history (Lonely Planet
or the like). |
|
- when the study visit implies contact with
animals, especially in farm visits, care must be taken that these visits are
planned late in the program. For instance, when the visitors come from a
country in which Foot and Mouth Disease is endemic they may carry the virus
and the visitors may constitute a risk for our animal population, which is
free of the disease. After a period of three days it can be expected that the
virus they may carry (in clothes or on skin and mucosae) will have
disappeared. |
|
- often the participants of a study visit to the
Member State are ready to share room in the hotel: this will allow them to
keep some money from the daily allowance they get in their own pocket. It is
important to note that the normal salary they receive in the BC is so low
that the daily allowance in the MS largely exceeds their monthly income. To
prevent trouble during the visit it is wise to request (in a diplomatic way)
in the phase of making arrangements for the study visit if people wish to
share rooms. |
|
- when visiting establishments (laboratories,
production facilities) in the beneficiary country, make sure that you
strictly obey the basic principles of hygiene and safety: there may be a
tendency that you are considered a special visitor and therefore exempt from
the “normal” rules (protective clothing, going through a slaughterhouse
without following the principle of from clean to dirty). It is important that
we show that we are obeying the rules and take them serious. We need to be
aware that we, coming from the EU Member States, are a “role model”. |
|
3.2. The office of the RTA is the focal point of
project activities in the Beneficiary Country. It needs to be a well-equipped
office with adequate facilities for communication and administration. It also
serves as the Head Quarters for all STE missions. For adequate functioning it
is indispensable that the project office has a bank account in the
Beneficiary country for small expenditures. Adequate financial administration
for this “petty cash” should be ensured. |
|
|
|
Part 4
Anecdotic observations
The presentation of observations from practice
has to be done with caution and hesitation. When names and situations are
clearly specified those involved may feel directly criticised and blamed. To
minimise these risks the observations have been made anonymous. It also has to
be noted they are nothing more than personal anecdotes, that have no claim of
general applicability.
4.1. About strategic thinking:
Twinning projects mostly concern the transfer of
knowledge about the EU legislation. In simple terms the objective is the
adoption of EU rules and practices in the beneficiary country. However, rules
are only a tool, they are not a goal in itself.
The example of the regulations regarding the
control and eradication of (former list A) animal diseases can show how this
works out in practice. The EU rules prescribe (in the non-vaccination policy)
that the infected herd needs to be destroyed, the surrounding area of the farm
is blocked (standstill in 3 km zone and 10 km zone), so that no animal
movements may further spread the disease and all animal contacts with the
infected farm are to be identified: tracing upward and downward. The reasoning
behind this tracing is to figure out where the disease may have come from and
where it could have been brought to before the stand still was effective. This
summarises the basic tools to start the control and eradication. Application of
these measures alone do not eradicate the disease. On top of these measures a
strategy has to be developed with additional measures to create an eradication
campaign that is effective in the specific outbreak: this takes into account
the local situation, farming practices, the precise cause behind the outbreak
(is it from wildlife? Or is it from an accidental disposal of an infective
piece of meat? The possibilities are essentially unlimited). The key is that it
is of utmost importance to oversee and interpret the findings, analyse and draw
conclusions about how to get as soon as possible an effective control over the
disease and its risk factors. Personally I have seen that veterinary services
obeyed EU ruling to collect information on tracing of contacts of infected
farms. It resulted in nice forms with a number of contacts. They however did
not collate all the information, they did not take the time to analyse the
significance of the findings. So it ended up as a waste of energy:
possibilities to get a picture of how the virus travelled through the country
were left unused. In fact, when a country is confronted with a number of
outbreaks on its territory and it cannot link (most of) the outbreaks with each
other, then in fact the epidemiological conclusion is inevitable: the disease
is out of control.
In the same way I could observe that a country
was nicely collecting information on harmful substances in food: the monitoring
program was roughly in accordance with the requirements from EU and lots of
data were piled up in tables and reports. These reports were placed on
bookshelves and in this way EU requirements were fulfilled. However no attempt
was made to analyse the data, to try to draw conclusions on where possible
contaminants found their origin and how preventive actions could be taken that
the contaminants ended in the food.
4.2. In many countries there are no cold stores
at slaughterhouses. The practice in those countries is that the meat and
carcasses are transported to the market or to the retail sellers after the
slaughter process has been finished. The consequence of this practice is that
no quarantine of carcasses is in fact possible: in EU slaughterhouses the meat
inspector has the option to retain the carcass until some (additional) tests
have been completed and only after this to decide if the meat is fit for
consumption. For instance the testing for TSE (including BSE: mad cow disease)
of older ruminants requires laboratory investigation, before the carcass can be
released. Obviously this requirement cannot be put in practice when no cold
storage can be realised at the slaughterhouse. As a consequence in those
countries large scale testing for TSE is not practised and the level of safety
as realised in the EU cannot be guaranteed.
4.3. A basic principle of food safety guarantee
(in the EU) is traceability. It must be possible to trace back in the
production chain: where does the product originate? Traceability is also
fundamental for guarantees on animal health and for an adequate and efficient
animal disease eradication: where does the animal came from and with which
animals has it been in contact? This requirement is met with animal
identification and movement registration. At first sight this means that
animals need to be fitted with an ear tag and that movement from one place (farm) to another (farm, market,
slaughterhouse) are recorded. EU legislation requires this. However the set-up
of such a system is very complicated and needs a lot of technical arrangements
and it also needs fundamental compliance by the farmers and traders. Compliance
depends partly on (fear for) sanctions. But the main incentive for compliance
is that the large majority of the stakeholders are convinced that such system
is required and that they see their own interest in compliance. How far away
from practice was the Minister of a central European country when he said to me
that he would implement the EU requirements for Identification and movement
control within half a year: “we issue a Law and provide all local vets a set of
ear tags”. This top down approach will not work, because of the reluctance of
the farmers and traders. Why would they invest time and effort in fulfilling
the needs of the government? With the implication that at the end of the day
the tax inspector may come to see if they have provided the correct details on
their stock? Efficient animal identification is available in countries where
the system was built on a herd book registration set up by the farmers
themselves, so that they could get reliable information on breeding value of
animals. When such a system was already there, then the government could use
the opportunity to link it with their requirements.
4.4. In a (non-EU) country preventive vaccination
was used to control Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD). The official policy was to
aim at a blanket vaccination so that the circulation of the virus would be
stopped. However the availability of vaccine was limited because of shortage of
funds. In fact only certain regions were provided with supplies of vaccine,
dependent on how much money was available in that particular year. To alleviate
the financial constraints it was decided to ask a contribution of the farmers,
when the animals were vaccinated. This would generate financial resources to
allow for a larger part of the animal population to be vaccinated: obviously to
the benefit of the farmers, so their contribution was well motivated. When
presented with this policy I asked what would happen if a farmer refused or
just was unable to pay his contribution. My counterpart answered that in such
case his animals would not receive the vaccine. By all means a consequent
reasoning: however it will make the policy to control FMD completely
ineffective. In the vaccinated area there will be two kinds of animals:
vaccinated and non-vaccinated. In the non-vaccinated animals the virus will
still be able to proliferate. The circulation of virus in the herd will
continue and the money spent on the control of the disease is almost completely
wasted. The lesson: either you perform the job good, with precision and
consequence, or leave it.
In the same way adequate animal disease control
depends on correct reporting of suspected (or confirmed) cases. I have
encountered several countries where the official line is clear: each and every
suspicion has to be reported to the authorities and immediate action is taken
according to internationally agreed practices. However, from practice, down the
line, in the small villages, the local veterinarian very well knows he is
dependent for his job on the power of the local governor or other political leader.
This may lead to the point where it is made clear to the vet that he should not
report a suspicion of a serious animal disease. For the poor vet the local
chief is more important than the official authorities far away in the capital.
Let alone that this local vet has some understanding of the significance of
proper reporting (passive surveillance) for official guarantees in
international trade.
4.5. On the other hand in the Western world,
governed by the notion of sound scientific practice, we may not understand how
our colleagues have to interact in their own country where culture and politics
are based on other frames of reference. Zero risk exists only in theory. Risk
therefore has to be weighed in a complex of arguments. In a country where the decision
maker risks capital punishment in case his decision turns into an unfavourable
situation, the outcome of his assessment may well differ from the expectations
of his Western colleagues. BSE has developed to a big food scare in the years
between 1994 until well into the first decade of the 21st century.
The basis of the EU policy is now the acceptance of strict control measures
that lead to adequate guarantees, that however nót
lead to an absolute zero risk. As consequence cases of BSE still occur which
are considered as inevitable and as such acceptable. However in some countries
around the world a case of BSE would lead to serious personal consequences for
the Chief Veterinary Officer (and probably others). Negotiations on
BSE-guarantees between this CVO and his EU counterparts will obviously be very
difficult.
4.6. The key philosophy in Twinning is that the
Beneficiary country officers are supported with advice and knowledge from the
Member State colleagues. It should be avoided that the Twinning partners from
the Member State side deliver “ready-made” solutions. A turnkey result in a
Twinning project is a missed chance: it represents a failure of cooperation. It
will be clear that the Member State staff has to sail around these cliffs all
the time: it is tempting to let Member State staff produce the results, as they
can often do that in a very efficient way. The failure is that the result is in
that case a copy-paste result, not an achievement of intensive discussion to
find the best way to realise the objective (mandatory result) within the
context of the beneficiary country. The Member State project leader has to find
the right balance between efficient achievement of benchmarks by letting his
own experts do the job and in fact complete failure of the project because the
beneficiary country counterparts do not perform as agreed in the Work Plan.
This is by all means a delicate task that requires diplomatic and political
skills.
In a certain country, characterised by a high
degree of consultancy dependence, I refused a large cooperation project offered
to me, because I felt that in fact we had to do the job. Of course the
beneficiary counterparts assured that they would be finally responsible and
that they would be committed to the achievements. But I sensed that their input
would be limited to sitting and watching while we were doing the job. The
results achieved would not be sustainable, because obviously there would not be
a real ownership at the beneficiary side.
4.7. Authority is often perceived in Eastern and
Southern European countries to be associated with highest level of
technical-scientific knowledge. The influence of personal characteristics like
charisma, vision, leadership and managerial skills are often not recognised. As
a consequence the “boss” is not inclined to listen to arguments, because he
considers himself automatically to be the expert. Disputes are settled on power
more than on analysis and weighing of arguments from different viewpoints. “Of
course I am the Chief Veterinary Officer because I am Professor at the
Veterinary Faculty.” The consequence of this is often a bad management
practice, disinterest on the part of the staff in the department, hastily decision-making
and shortfall of strategic thinking.
Because it is an existing reality in many
potential Beneficiary Countries we have to realise that in a project in the
veterinary area only a MS Project Leader who is a veterinarian himself is
acceptable. The fact that persons not from the veterinary profession can be found
in the highest positions in veterinary services and inspectorates in Western
European countries is not understood in the East and the South.
Notes
[1] ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/financial.../2012/manual_may_2012.pdf
[2] Institution
building as a notion is somewhat more specific as compared to capacity
building: Wiki gives for capacity building: "… a conceptual approach to
development that focuses on understanding the obstacles that inhibit people,
governments, international organisations and non-governmental organisations
from realizing their developmental goals while enhancing the abilities that
will allow them to achieve measurable and sustainable results".
[3] Personal
information from representatives from EU Commission. A useful source of
information is the evaluation performed from the perspective of a new Member
State (Twinning Projects: Analysing the Experience of Old EU Member States and
Evaluating Benefits of Twinning Out for the Czech Republic; 2006, Prague;
RM01/04/04; www.iir.cz). In 2010 an evaluation of the Twinning instrument
and assessment of its efficacy has been performed under the auspices of the EU
Commission: the results are available at:
ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/.../20121002-final-report_en.pdf
[4] for
example: in a project on strengthening veterinary capabilities an issue may
well be the establishment of a contingency plan for handling an outbreak of
Classical Swine Fever. However, if during the project implementation the
Beneficiary country is struggling with another disease, like Avian Influenza,
there is no interest to work on Classical Swine Fever. So in that case better
use the capacity to work on a contingency plan on Avian Influenza. Such
flexibility needs already attention in the formulation of the Work Plan: the
mandatory result is (in this example) best be defined as: the development of a
contingency plan for animal disease control (for instance Classical Swine
Fever). This leaves the freedom to change the content of the activity in
accordance of the actual need. It should be noted that changes in the agreed
Work Plan need a lot of bureaucratic procedures.
[5] The
arguments to decide whether or not to pursue participation in a Twinning
project are subject to internal policy decisions of the participating
organisation(s). To summarise in detail is outside the scope of this paper,
because it belongs to the discretion of the respective decision makers.
Arguments that play a role: Twinning is an instrument of EU policy in
enlargement and neighbourhood policy. In this sense government institutions are
implementing the policy of their national government as EU Member State.
Participation in twinning will increase the organisation’s visibility and its
experience. It will allow the building of international networks, strengthening
the position in the EU framework of inspection and control, the exchange of
knowledge and the promotion of national ideas and insights. Part of the story
is also that Twinning may support in an indirect way the interest of national
industry: it could very well pave the way and open doors. Participation will
also be beneficial for the own staff to acquire international experience and
knowledge, to become really “Community Inspectors”. An argument often forgotten
is that participation in Twinning will be subsidised from EU funds, originating
from the contribution of Member States. The participation in Twinning will
allow (part of) the money to flow back in the country (the so-called principle
of “juste retour”).
[7] As an example: at the time of the unrest following the cartoons in the Jyllands Posten, it was not very logical to choose Denmark as a consortium partner for a Twinning in an Arabic country. Sometimes the issues may be much more subtle like criticism on the part of the Member State directed to the Beneficiary Country in one of the EU meetings.
[8] The
Twinning Manual specifies exactly the costs that are reimbursable from the
project budget. The fees as well as travel costs and DSA are exactly specified,
so a negotiation in Twinning will not be about price: the financial discussions
are about whether the costs can be covered according to the rules of the Manual
and whether the budget stays within the limits of the funds allocated.
Competition on price plays no role at all in Twinning.
[9] The
communication between individuals in The Netherlands is often perceived as
being utterly blunt by people from other countries, where communication is
likely to be more indirect and more polite. In some countries there is a
reluctance to report problems to the superiors, so the “boss” only hears the
good news. There may be a hidden tendency to avoid saying “no”; instead it is
felt to be preferable to find other reasons or excuses around the real reason.
Differences in body language may be important: in some countries shaking the
head may have exactly the opposite meaning as in our part of the world.
[10] http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/fukuyama/2012/05/08/the-two-europes/
10 Managing Cultural Dynamics, Jitske Kramer: ISBN 978-90-814494-1-0
[12] The Twinning Manual indicates that the costs
to be covered by the project budget imply (in broad lines): salary of the MS
staff during stay in the BC, plus cost of travel and daily allowance. The
salary costs are reimbursed according to fixed rates in three categories
according to experience. On top of the salary compensation 150% is added for
administrative costs. For the RTA the actual salary paid by the MS institution
is reimbursed plus 6% for administrative handling and the RTA is provided with
allowances for housing, insurance etc. The key issue of the financing of
Twinning project respective of the MS side is therefore that only activities in
the BC are covered based on the number of days spent abroad. The fee for these
days amounts to standard tariff (in three categories) plus 150% for management
and overhead. Any costs of activities inside the MS, or other costs (like
contingencies), including the time spent inside the MS on study visits and
administration is to be covered from the 150%. It is important to note that the
standard rate for civil servants from Ministries is fixed at € 250 per day,
while for registered Mandated Bodies the rates are substantially higher (€ 250,
€ 350 and € 450 for respective categories, and upon explicit approval from EU
Commission topping up can take place to € 330, € 450 and € 550). Explicit
approval from EU Commission is also required for the status of Mandated
Body.
[13] Flexibility is a key issue: it could be that
the Beneficiary Country is even unable to guarantee adequate functioning of the
office facilities: in one project we were confronted with a power failure that
lasted exceptionally long: several months. At a certain point in time the RTA
was visited by somebody, who offered to provide electricity from somewhere
around provided he was given 40 euro for a cable. The RTA gave him the
euro-notes and indeed: one day later a power cable was mounted through the
window at the 7th floor, providing the RTA office with power for
computers and air conditioner. But of course only for the RTA office: the rest
of the 10 floor’s building remained devoid from electrical power.
[14] In The Netherlands
courses for participants from potential Beneficiary Countries (Candidate Member
States and countries under the European Neighbourhood Policy) are organised
under the MATRA program. In these courses participants from governmental area are
trained in principles and practices of EU regarding for instance food safety
and animal health.