Nadia’s journey and vision: adventures, satisfactions and contradictions of European projects, in different countries and contexts
European projects as a profession: other countries, other projects, other customs
We have devoted a series of articles to EU projects as a profession: What does it mean to be an “EU project designer“? When and how is an EU project designer useful? How to become an EU project designer?
It is a profession that is very much related to the context, the industry, and also the country in which you work.
Today we have the opportunity to learn, from a comparative perspective, what it is like to work on European projects in Italy, France and different countries in Africa.
We discuss this with Nadia Maio, who reflects, comparing them, on the different stages of her articulated professional journey, highlighting the contradictions and the spaces available to make the profession of “European designer” a lever of change, in her own country and in the world.
Yours has been a varied and adventurous journey. Would you like to tell us about it?
My path in European projects began with a desire to work in international cooperation, particularly in Africa, and has since transformed over time going through very different roles, contexts and systems. After graduating with a degree in International Relations and a diploma in project management for development cooperation, I started working in the field, first with institutional internships and then as a project manager on EuropeAid projects.
My first experiences as project coordinator, in Morocco and Madagascar, were decisive. They confronted me with the complexities of implementation, the limits of a design conceived “from a distance,” and the constant tension between ideals, rules, and local realities.
After these experiences, I grew closer and closer to all the aspects, not necessarily “on the ground,” that hold a European project together: planning, administration, finance, governance. I thus moved on to project management in the university setting: first with the Desertification Research Unit of the University of Sassari, with which I continued to nurture my vocation for managing complex projects in Africa and the Mediterranean, then with the University of Cagliari, where I started a professional career, which continues to this day, on research projects of the Horizon program.
Today I work at theUniversity of Aix-Marseille, accompanying researchers and faculty in European design, with a particular focus on collaborative Framework Program projects, and I co-founded Kalos, a space for reflection and experimentation, an independent research and action association that aims to increase the impact and sustainability of EU-funded projects.
Your path has seen twists and turns. What were the factors that pushed you over the years toward something new?
If I think back to the red thread of my journey, I would say that it has been a progressive awareness of the world of projects not so much as “sets of activities” but rather as complex processes, traversed by power relations, asymmetries of competencies, constraints, but also possibilities. As places and moments in life where different priorities collide and choices have to be made, where the “thought project” collides with the “real project.”
Figuig, Morocco, 2011: my first experience as a project coordinator on the ground. This experience explains well many of the “drivers” of my path.
Figuig is a small oasis, far from big cities, which after fifteen years is still a cornerstone of my life. It was a EuropeAid project on the socio-economic inclusion of people with disabilities. It started with noble intentions, but once on the ground it quickly became apparent how far removed it was from the context and reality of Figuig.
Knowledge about the situation and needs of Figuig families was limited. At the same time, there was a lack of real understanding and recognition of disability within the families. The planned intervention relied on the involvement of experts who mastered neither the local language nor French. In this context, the project required rethinking and rebuilding from the ground up.
This led me to take direct responsibility, seeking margins of adaptation even when they were not foreseen: I chose to invest in local staff, revise operational choices, and prioritize observation and listening over the application of what was written in the project form. I had to cope with funding management blind spots, working for long periods without funding and carrying out activities even in the absence of a fully structured framework. I was driven by ideals. I regularly confronted and clashed with the mayor of the oasis, who had nicknamed me “la petite bombe.”
When it first expired, my contract was not renewed. But I still carry with me the joy of seeing local staff growing and acting, and a sense of responsibility to the people of Figuig: met around round tables, seated with discreet dignity, often accompanied by their children with disabilities. I carry with me a tentative hope that I have contributed, at least a little, to the journey of development and change.
These are typical stories and dynamics common to many international development cooperation projects.
Stories and dynamics that did not deter you, however: how did you pick up Figuig’s legacy in your subsequent experiences?
I confess that the first few months after Figuig were not easy. I wanted to hear the stories and views of other people who had gone through similar experiences. I was afraid to recognize my experience as the norm. However, the next experience, as a project administrator in Madagascar, followed a fairly similar script.
I thus chose to change my path, while continuing to cultivate my interest in international development cooperation in African contexts, as part of the Desertification Research Unit at the University of Sassari. It was a deeply formative experience in which I had the opportunity to observe and contribute to several complex European projects implemented in different contexts.
Again, my experience has confirmed that the management of European funds for development cooperation applies a rather “conservative” view, more concerned with the balances between the actors involved than with long-term benefits, whereas projects should be seen as investments geared toward generating value over time. And project structures leave little room for adaptation. It is up to those managing a project to have the good will, and the responsibility, to read the context and reorient action.
I can give another example. We were doing a project on Jatropha, a drought-resistant plant grown in areas prone to soil degradation, the seeds of which can be used to produce biofuel. The Project Officer of the European Commission, had, with good reason, doubts about the alleged virtues of the project. The ensuing discussions did not lead to constructive elements, such as a change in activities, or even a calm assessment of the limitations of the approach and possible alternatives. The project continued to operate on its own tracks. The follow-up processes did not serve to produce real comparison and improvement of the funded action.
Today I look back on those experiences as foundational moments: they taught me that it takes courage, critical sense and competence to transform a project from an administrative exercise into a living process. That is where the quality of action is at stake. It is a vision I have carried with me over time and try to apply today, especially in my work with research institutions and universities: taking care of the rules, without ceasing to question them, is an integral part of doing good European design.
Taking care of the rules: this is what you have continued and continue to do in your work on European projects
That’s right. Rules and project management are, shall we say, my specialty. Administrative and financial aspects are inextricably linked to European project management. These are neither obvious nor innocuous aspects. I have frequently come across partners lacking the tools and means to deal with their terms, concepts, rules, deadlines and templates. The price paid is high. Failure to implement activities, poor results, conflict and frustration at the expense of administratively untrained partners.
This I saw clearly with partners from the so-called “south shore” in my first Horizon project, run with the University of Cagliari. The team at the Ethiopian partner university spent most of their time/work on the project understanding how the platform worked for data entry needed to validate the financial report. The Tanzanian partner university struggled with similarly practical issues typical of a European project, such as VAT management. Not knowing the rules caused delays in receiving the funding tranche, significantly impacting the progress of activities. It has fueled feelings of incomprehension and inadequacy-the opposite of what a cooperation and research project should produce.
Among European partners, the levels of knowledge are more homogeneous and the work is facilitated, but even in these cases-as I found when I started working with INSERM in Marseille-even large and qualified structures can be ill-prepared to support the implementation of a European project in an agile way. The procedural aspects of the European funding system are learned primarily through practice; they are skills that must be built and maintained.
And so we come to your French experience. What are you involved in now?
I moved to Marseille in 2017. A lot had happened in the meantime: my son Tiago was born, I got married to Massimo, I continued managing European projects with Italian and French universities, and I started an association called Kalos.
With Kalos-which I co-founded with the very colleagues/friends I met in Figuig-I am pursuing what have been my lifelong struggles: finding solutions to increase the impact and sustainability of EU-funded projects, reducing the asymmetry between the different actors working on them, developing critical thinking about the design and management of European projects, and improving capacities to implement projects consistent with their context and the needs of the beneficiaries.
The conundrum is to find solutions, ways to facilitate the passage of information, with the goal of ensuring that there are knowledgeable and informed people around a European project who are able to mature a critical mind about the action they are implementing. Especially when these people work in vulnerable contexts, in economically poorer countries, with limited knowledge and expertise about European procedures, where the power asymmetry between donors and beneficiaries is excessive.
Among many activities, I sent my application to Aix-Marseille University in 2022 and I am still there. The University today is part of the MER (Mission Europe pour la Recherche), a mutualized structure of French national research centers that aims to encourage their participation in European projects. The MER accompanies research units from the proposal design stage, improves the quality of proposals, and fosters collaboration between different teams through the sharing of resources and the exchange of practices.
What struck you most about the way European projects are approached in France?
What surprised me in France in comparison with Italy, and continues to surprise me, is the number of support tools and incentives made available to faculty and researchers to participate in European calls.
In the preparation phase of a Horizon Europe collaborative project, faculty and researchers who want to position themselves as coordinators can access various funds, institutional and national, to support any missions needed to meet with project partners, define the roadmap, conduct initial brainstorming sessions, or engage a consulting firm to be accompanied in the preparation, in whole or in part, of projects.
In addition, teachers can take advantage of a reduced teaching load to devote themselves to writing the project for submission-a measure renewed if the project is funded.
A great deal of investment is made at the MER in awareness-raising and information activities designed to acquaint faculty and researchers with the opportunities offered by the European Union and the various tools made available to them. In general, there is a strong need in France to spread knowledge, to overcome reticence toward European funds. Although there are notable exceptions, the culture of the “European project” is not yet so widespread. Hence, at the national level there is a major investment to encourage and support structuring and mutualization such as that of the MER. After all, the EEW is also a project, and as such brings with it the difficulties, limitations and opportunities of any other project.
The structuring of French universities also includes, as in the case of Université d’Aix-Marseille, the presence of private companies dedicated to project management, technology transfer and research exploitation. These are legally separate entities that directly receive European funding on behalf of the universities and have management autonomy, their own accounts and the capacity to manage contracts, patents and partnership activities.
This model offers significant operational support to faculty and researchers and contributes to smoother administrative and financial management. At the same time, it may reduce opportunities for internal development of skills related to European planning and direct management of funding.In this sense, the model represents a trade-off between management efficiency and development of the institutional skills of the public body.
So it is not an optimal system, but I believe it remains highly topical in Italy to strengthen, structure and make public administrations more agile in the management of EU funds, as well as any other type of funding.
Instead, what did you find in Italy, and do you now miss in France?
In Italy, I have encountered a mature community of professionals. Finding a project manager experienced in European funds is not difficult. I often meet Italian people working in European planning here in France and they always stand out for their insight, expertise and deep knowledge of the European funds system.
In France, I have observed phases of recruitment in which people without experience are hired for Chargé de projet européen positions. This reflects more a difficulty in finding experienced profiles than a voluntary choice by institutions, and does not seem related to the salary level, which is generally in line with local standards.
In Italy, on the other hand, there is a widespread culture of European design, a maturity of the craft that is the result of years of practice, shared training and solid professional networks, partly because of the strong need for European funds.
Nevertheless, in Italy I happened to see EU project designers engaging in project construction with a “success fee” logic, without receiving compensation linked to the work done. In France there is a very different culture of work and recognition of skills. This makes the system more rigid, but the respect toward the worker is generally better. Hearing my French colleagues complain, I often find it difficult to adhere to their observations, not because they are unfair but because coming from the Italian labor system, many things already seem more advanced to me.
Of Italy I miss most of all the passion that moved the teams I worked with, which translated into great involvement in projects. Perhaps mixed with the desperation of knowing that from those projects came our often precarious and project-based contracts. But of the Italian labor system, I miss the shared passion for European design.
The French one is therefore a more structured system, for better or worse. You, on the other hand, as a European practitioner and designer, what tools have you felt have accompanied you along your journey?
I regularly consult EU platforms, official manuals, work programs, EC regulations, reports, and various publications that are becoming more widely available and accessible.
In order to grow Kalos – and at the same time me – I went back to studying, researching, and trying to understand more about the European funding system and its tools. From there I became a reader of your Guide. I consulted it regularly and it supported me in creating content for moments of awareness, information and training on European funds. Now the situation in France is gradually changing, but until a few years ago, associative realities-and in general, organizations engaged in social innovation actions-had no awareness and interest in implementing actions financed with European funds.
The work then led me to specialize in the accompaniment and training of collaborative projects within Horizon. In Italy, my beacon has always been APRE, while in France it is its French counterpart, the Horizon Europe National Contact Point (NCP), which answers questions and offers a variety of support resources. The two structures have a somewhat different nature and logic: the NCP is linked to the Ministry of Teaching, while APRE is an association, doing the work of an NCP while participating in calls for proposals. Which is undoubtedly a peculiarity, but also an advantage for APRE and the partnerships in which APRE is present.
Also as part of my work on Horizon, over the years I have discovered other interesting platforms for self-training, with quality materials and webinars, sometimes free and sometimes for a fee. Enspire.science has been very useful for me to go into detail on the templates of European research and innovation projects; the checklists of Europa Media Training and the content offered by theAssociation Nationale Recherche Technologie (ANRT), at the crossroads of public research and the private sector, are interesting. Hyperion ‘s training places great emphasis on the preliminary stages of project writing. To keep myself informed and up-to-date, I regularly follow platforms such as ERA Portal Austria and-since my interest in development cooperation has never waned-I always follow InfoCooperation with interest.
Let’s end with a personal question: what do you like about European projects?
I enjoy the synergy of differences. I remain fascinated by the difficulties that are created and the glimmers of opportunity that are seen. I work a lot on the administrative, financial, and management aspects of European projects, but I have never felt like a technocrat or a bureaucrat. In my very small way, I have always seen myself as an agent of change, driven by the almost utopian ideal of one day seeing a “beautiful” and “just” European project.
I hope that this awareness will spread: professionals doing this work, in different roles and contexts, should increasingly recognize themselves as agents of change. People who can mobilize skills, connect different actors and contribute to improving the contexts in which they work.
If I look back at my own journey, the common thread is this: to work with passion and responsibility on European projects, without ceasing to improve, and also to question their contradictions. It is in this dynamic that the possibility of doing better is at stake, and also of making work on European projects a beautiful and challenging adventure.
Every project is, in this sense, a journey: it always leaves a trace, sometimes positive, sometimes more challenging, and allows for meeting different actors, figuring out with whom they can continue in future experiences, and what limitations to reread as levers for learning and improvement.
