Marta Andhov  0:00  

Welcome to Bestek, the Public Procurement Podcast. Today, we’re talking about development aid and procurement, as well as becoming a leader. I have a chance to sit today with Professor Annamaria La Chimia and join us, have a listen!

About Bestek  0:23  

Welcome to Bestek, the Public Procurement Podcast. In this podcast, Dr Willem Janssen and Dr Marta Andhov Discuss public procurement law issues, their love of food and academic life. In each episode, Willem, Marta and their guests search for answers to intriguing public procurement questions. This is Bestek. Let’s dish off public procurement law.

Marta Andhov  0:47  

Hello, dear listeners, I am once more left to my own devices as my beloved co-host unfortunately got sick, but I am joined by a fantastic company of a dear colleague, what a trailblazer is joining us today, as already indicated in the intro. I’m interviewing today, Professor Annamaria La Chimia, who does not really need introduction in the environment of procurement academia and development aid and procurement. But in case, if you’re hearing that name for the first time, let me just give you a couple, a very few of bullet points on Anna that does not do her justice, to be fair. But Anna is currently a director of the Public Procurement Research Group at the Nottingham University, which is undoubtedly an award-leading center of research and teaching in public procurement law and policy area. She’s also a research fellow at Stellenbosch University and a member of the steering committee of the International Economic Law Collective. But Anna’s work goes outside of university walls to the practice and also really to the community that really needs her help, and that is the work with the World Bank various governmental organizations and NGOs on topics steering from gender and procurement, development aid and procurement, food procurement and so on and so many more. But also what I’m particularly excited about is to talk today with a woman that I have been looking up to for some years right now, in her organizational capacity, Anna also is a school equity officer and a co-director of equality and diversity program. So all those topics, which also are very dear my heart. So we have a chance today to chat and really learn a little bit more from someone that has been doing so much, so without further ado. Anna, welcome to Bestek. 

Annamaria La Chimia  3:06  

Marta, thank you very much. Thank you for inviting me. Thank you for the lovely introduction. A big hello to Willem as well, who I’m sure will be listening to us and is missed today. I’m a fan of the podcast, so I’m really honored to have been invited to join you.

Marta Andhov  3:28  

Thanks so much. We were looking forward to having this chat, undoubtedly. And as you mentioned, you had a chance to listen to our podcast before. So you know how the story goes. We will start with a brief Entrée today in which I would want to really give you a space to share with us a little bit how did you ended up in your career, where you are right now, and in our Main we will dive a little bit into, specifically the development aid and procurement, one of the areas that you’ve been working extensively on. And then when we come to Dessert, a little bit on leadership, what it means to become a leader, what it means to be a leader. And I might pick your brain on some advice on how to how to progress in the career. 

Marta Andhov  4:15  

But let’s start with the Entrée, so Anna from my research and obviously our talks over the last years. I know that your career spans through several countries, several different organizations, public and intergovernmental ones, and you’ve been associated, to my understanding, preliminary over these with University of Nottingham. Tell us a little bit how that all came around. 

Annamaria La Chimia  4:44  

Yes, so I came into procurement, absolutely by chance. I don’t know. I think most people at first, I was a practicing lawyer in Italy, and I was practicing in front of the Appeal Court and the Administrative Court, but I had graduated very, very early for Italian standards. I completed my full law degree in four years. Now, they need five to complete it. So after practicing for a while, I decided that I needed to study a little bit more and take a little bit of a break, which I never did. So I decided to take an LLM abroad, and I went to Nottingham, and that’s where I came across procurement. It was the very first week when I heard the opening, the presentation days of the module convener for all the LLM options. I heard the Martin Trybus, yes.

Marta Andhov  5:47  

He always does a good impression, doesnt he? 

Annamaria La Chimia  5:49  

Yes, he always does a good impression. And I always say, I say it also in my book that I did procurement, thanks to an inspiring talk by him. And that’s where it all started. You know, the first week was the beginning. The first week of my LLM was my introduction to procurement. I did the course. I did the first semester, then I did the second semester that the module was taught by Sue on EU procurement and international trade. And that’s when my career started. Then the school offered me a PhD scholarship to do a PhD. The scholarship was funded by the PPRG and the School of Law. So you can imagine, it’s a great honor to now direct the Center where I was a student, and for me was, you know, I came from Italy, a place where, 25 years ago, academia was very different from now. I had no female professors in Rome. I had 27 male professors. So it was quite innovative to came to Nottingham and work with a woman with a woman professor who was the leader in her field, and I always say, you know, meeting Sue was transformative for me, because I learned a lot from her. How to treat students with respect and importance. And give opportunity to people.

Marta Andhov  7:28  

At that time, when you started your career in Nottingham, when Sue Arrowsmith, that is a name that I don’t think that there is anyone in procurement that does not know that name, but at that time, when you were, you know, young academic that God offered the PhD, did it sink in at that time, who is offering you the PhD? 

Annamaria La Chimia  7:53  

I had absolutely no idea. I had absolutely no idea who she was and how important she was. And I remember when she offered me the PhD scholarship, I said, Oh, at the time, I really wasn’t sure if I wanted to do the PhD. So she was like, but I have lots of people who want this scholarship, so you really have to decide. In my mind, I was like, well, if lots of people want it, then maybe I should take it.

Marta Andhov  8:26  

Then it sounds like it’s a good idea. 

Annamaria La Chimia  8:28  

It sounds like a good idea. But then, of course, you know, this is just a joke, but it was more the topic that motivated me to do it. I was really passionate about it. I did my LLM Dissertation on the same topic that then I did my PhD on and in general, the environment that was at Nottingham, that is still the same, you know, very international, very open, very friendly, a place that gives opportunities to those who are worth in a way, yeah. And you said that you spend your career mainly Nottingham, and yes, it’s true. My academic career, I never left, because it’s… Well for procurement, you wouldn’t want to be anywhere else, you know.

Marta Andhov  9:16  

Yeah, I think that you know…

Annamaria La Chimia  9:17  

In the UK, especially.

Marta Andhov  9:19  

Absolutely, but I think, you know, even if we look a good 10 years ago, and hopefully I don’t say something that factually is incorrect, but at least on European scale, I would say that, you know, the 10 years ago when I had a chance to join, at that time, the so it’s over 10 years ago, actually, the PhD conference in Nottingham. That was, I think, in my mind, over the years of my PhD and the years that follow, really the only center that was so vividly focusing on procurement, I think that, you know, at that time, when I was doing the PhD, it was me and my supervisor in the whole university. In Aarhus that time that were only two of us doing procurement, and that continued to be the case. Right now, if that is in Copenhagen, we have a couple more people. Or Utrecht became a little bit more, sort of known for, also for the law group and the multidisciplinary procurement group, but Nottingham, for many, many years, was not only the place, but the only one really that recognized the importance of procurement and really drove the development and research to some extent. So as you say, it’s, for sure, an extremely vibrant place to be. And as we finish today, I want to talk also a little bit more about that, how it is to, you know, almost go a full circle, from starting your career there to right now, leading the group. 

Marta Andhov  10:52  

But let’s step away a little bit from the organization, from the procurement law group. Let’s talk a little bit more right now, about what has been taking a lot of time, a lot of research time over the years in your life, which is one of, only one of the areas obviously, that you focus on, because you did a lot of different things, but the reoccurring theme seems to be the development aid and procurement. Would that be a fair statement? 

Annamaria La Chimia  11:28  

Yes, yes, absolutely. This would certainly be my, my starting point in procurement, how I started, how I developed my research. I have looked at the interaction between procurement and development, so how procurement is used as an instrument of governance in developing countries, and where governance is really understood as an essential component of development, and the lessons learned are relevant for all countries. And so quickly I, you know, I’m anticipating, in a way, the fact that you know what we learn within the development context is relevant, not just for developing countries. What is happening in terms of reforms, in terms of new practices, and it’s something that all countries should look up to, because it’s important for everyone. It’s that it goes within that idea of best practices that are being developed and so this is how, you know, we could consider the term development procurement to be linked and related to everything that all procurement experts do. And I started my research looking at how state money is spent. And I was especially interested in the practice of aid tying. So I looked at the contradiction of the international economic framework, on the one end, sponsoring free trade, the means for the best allocation of resources, but then on the other, practicing protectionist in a sector such as development aid, where the need for the best allocation of resources is most felt. Now, for those who don’t know what tied aid is, because I guess not many are expert. Tied aid is a practice whereby donors give aid to recipient countries, but they say you can only buy goods and services in my own country. So if Italy gives aid to Kenya, it says to Kenya, yes, you can use this money, but you can only spend it via Italian suppliers. And this is a very common practice in the development sectors. Now maybe a little bit less than before, but there are still many ways of informal tying, so without explicitly saying so, without explicitly putting a condition of how to spend the mind formally, the donor manages to do so by, for example, and we all know how this is done, you know, by drafting very specific specifications that only certain suppliers will be able to meet, or by, you know, having a short tender, noticing not advertising tenders and all the rest.

Marta Andhov  14:38  

Can I just ask? Because out of the things that you mentioned right now, two questions come to my mind. First of them is, is it, when we are talking about this tied aid and development aid, do we tend to usually talk about just several countries that this is relevant? What I mean by that is that the donors usually will be, you know, Capo of the big, economically developed countries that really are interested in, let’s say, natural resources in developing part of the world. So do we have continuously, so to speak, the same players, or actually spreads quite across also, let’s say European countries, or would that the one that comes to my mind, whether that would be predominantly, you know, US providing money to, let’s say, African countries for development, and then having that requirements, or is it broader than that? My one question, and my second question is, then, when we talking about this development aid and tied aid, the regulatory setup is somehow exempted from the rules on the international trading agreement is that sort of a little pocket that has its own rules? Because the example that you mentioned, kind of, if we look at it from our day-to-day perspectives, like, Well, those are breaches, sort of, this is sort of a very particular way. So is that meaning that under the circumstances of particular agreements connected with the investment you can do so, or where we are in those?

Annamaria La Chimia  16:09  

So I’ll start with the first question, the extent to which it is practiced. Basically, pretty much all donors do that, with different levels and to a different extent. So at the international level, for example, the US tends to tie all of its food aid. European countries, they do it. There are, you know, many, Italy, for example, there was even the European Commission had even initiated that case against Italy, but then the case was dropped because Italy showed that it was taking steps to untie its aid. There is now, there has been an international agreement on untying aid to at least developing countries in 2002, but this agreement was limited to the least developing countries only. So it didn’t cover all the developing countries that still receive aid. But this agreement was done within the auspices of the OECD. So only the OECD countries were members of it, OECD, DAC countries. There is now a second review taking place to see where we are at. And there have been many reviews since, all these reviews showing that despite the commitment to untying aid in practice tied aid continues still to be practiced by most donors, by Canada, by the US, by China. China is not even members of this agreement. So you very often see when you go in developing countries, lots of projects that are being financed by China, and they are being carried out by Chinese companies. And this is a very common phenomenon in developing countries, but China is not part of any of the international initiatives that have been aimed and that have tried to ban tied aid. So there have been many soft law initiatives. I’ve already mentioned the OECD recommendation, but there have been many others, like the Paris Agreement and all the aid effectiveness initiatives since then, since the Paris agreement from a legal point of view. So to go to move to your second question, that the legal aspects of today this were my PhDs focused on, and what I did for the PhD, so I looked at whether this practice was compatible with the European rules, and so when it is practiced by European donors, and whether it is compatible with international law such as the WTO rules and the GPA rules. So I looked at both, and at the European level, what you notice is that, for a start, for a long time, there has been confusion as to what type of rules apply to development, procurement and whether countries, Member States should apply the EU directives or not. So for example, the UK, at the time of my PhD, was still member of Europe, and the UK used to apply the European directives. And at the time, the UK was very much pro-untying aid, was very much for the liberalization of the aid sector, of the aid procurement sector. But this contrasted, for example, with the case of Italy, where instead, there was no real clarity as to what rules had to be applied. And Italy, for example, employs a very peculiar technique. So they select the project. Italy selects the project. Italy selects the country, the goods to be purchased, but delegates the procurement to a procurement agency that purchases from Italy and carries out the purchasing from Italy. However, the procurement entity purchases on behalf of the recipient countries, so contracts are awarded on behalf of the recipient countries. Before the award, Italy has to approve the procedure and the award. So it’s all very interesting. Italy keeps full control of the process, but the formal award is made on behalf of the recipient country. So What rules do apply? So to cut a very long story short, I say that the rules that apply are still the European Union rules, because we should look at case law of the European Union, such as of the Court of Justice, such as the Open Sky Case. So case 476/98 of the ECG. And in that case, the case concerned an agreement between Germany and the United States were by the United States committed to grant preferences to German companies, and Germany, of course, claimed that, oh, well, you can’t apply. It’s not it’s not us giving the preferences, because it’s the US actually giving the preference, which is a very similar case as to what happens in Italy. Well, the ECJ said, No, we look at the real what lies behind the agreement, behind the agreement, behind the preference, lies an agreement between Germany and the US. So the preference is given just because there is this agreement. So the ECJ has always taken a very practical approach and a substantive approach, looking at substance rather than form, has said that the agreement was breaching the European rules. So I argue, and I make a very extensive case in my book, and where I argue why this case should be applied to tied aid as well. So in my view, this practice and this way of conducting the purchase is breaching European rules. But besides the fact that it breaches European rules, for me, the real problem is that this way of granting aid and of financing developing countries’ budget, because that’s at the end, is the project, the problem means that developing countries cannot use the money to pursue goals that nowadays we call strategic goals, like protecting SMEs or protecting communities using procurement for what we would expect nowadays, procurement to be used for, um, both social and environmental goals.

Marta Andhov  23:31  

Absolutely because one of the things that automatically struck me because um, ever so slightly diverging we both have been working also in some aspects of food procurement, right? Yeah, when you mentioning this food aid example earlier on, about the United States, sort of tying, tying its suppliers to food aid, that’s, I think, a very clear example where most presumably you’re thinking, well, but that’s not very sustainable, right? Food is one of those things that you most presumably want to have in a certain vicinity and locality due to, if that states freshness, if that is also purely, if you think about climate right, transporting food and so on, so forth. So that goes straight away, in it, into it. But I also think a type of conflict of interest, potentially, if also sort of, so to speak, arise here in some of those cases, because you are providing the aid, but at the same time you really, as you so eloquently elaborate on, you are tying it onto specific circumstances, which means that you don’t have really much discretion as the receiver to figuring out how you actually want to spend that money. Is that? Is that a fair observation? 

Annamaria La Chimia  24:49  

Yes, absolutely. And one of the consequences of tying aid in terms of development, the negative effect this has is that this distorts completely the nature of the aid, because you don’t end up giving what the recipient needs, but you give what you have and what you as a donor know that would be beneficial for your own company. So there is a great conflict of interest. And this is really very much a bigger problem within the aid sector. And this is, after all, how aid started. If we think about food aid. Food aid started as a means of disposing of surplus production in the US. So they were producing more, and what they decided to do was to give this more to developing countries. And the case of food aid is interesting and tragic at the same time, because with food aid, you have a series of problems linked to the fact that, for example, transportation takes so long that sometimes the food arrives rotten. And there have been many studies about it by the US as well, but they, you know, the agricultural lobby is so strong that it’s very difficult to agree any legislation to untie food aid. And there have been many attempts made in the US. Now, things are getting a little bit better, but still, a very high percentage of food aid is given tied by the US, not by the European Union. I have to say, the European Union has committed to, untying completely food aid. But you know, Europe does other things. Europe does internal subsidies to its farmers so…

Marta Andhov  26:42  

There is, you know, I think whichever region we will take, there are some things that we can learn, some good things, and things that we are all to replicate, and some things that you kind of look at it and saying, Well, really? But I think it’s also depending from the perspective, right? It’s always good depending from the perspective that we take, and I guess our role is to try to be as objective as we can in the assessment of those things, right as academics. And I think that if you a governmental representative or someone that writes policies or creates those things, you might have a different aim and goal right behind it. So that’s probably also tricky. I wanted to ask you, Anna here, in the context of legal enforcement, of all these elements, who sues, who, on what basis, like how that works, is that looking quite similar as and you know, that might be me just exposing my lack of knowledge here, but will that be still the same situation such as that you just have disregarded, bidder in the procedure, somehow suing, because, from the sound of it, you don’t really have even such an open competition, usually, from the sound of it, you would have the competitors from specific country already, right? So you won’t have this sort of more international or will we perceive the European sort of issues of open competition? 

Annamaria La Chimia  28:07  

Yes, there are, for a start, that are very few cases, because the market is limited. The sector is more limited. There have been some attempts in the Italian courts, for example, there have been attempts to sue, to challenge one of the decisions that was being made in relation to development aid procurement, but the Supreme Court said that they didn’t have legal standing because the contract was agreed on behalf of the recipient countries. So the forum for adjudication should have been the recipient countries forum. Now, of course, there are different challenges with that, if you think about it, because to challenge a case in a different country, you need to know the system well in that country, so the cost might be not worth it. So in the reduced challenge and the reduced review by supplier, we know what this might lead to and what problems this might give rise to. Now, the real mistake done in that Italian case was that actually they should have asked for a referral to the European Court of Justice. To see whether… That would have been really interesting, but that unfortunately didn’t happen. So this is for bilateral aid and for bilateral donors. With multilateral banks, each bank has got his own review system so procedures can be a challenge when it comes to how they spend money. But you know, each bank has got its own system and its own procedure. One issue that, for example, has been discussed in UK courts in relation to development aid is whether third actors such as NGOs have local standing to challenge the decision, and in one of the leading case related to development in the UK is a case called the World Development Movement Case where the World Development Movement was given legal stance to stand in front of the court and challenge the decision, and that was in relation to a dam that was being built by the Department for International Cooperation. So that was a first case where legal stance was given to an international NGO in the world development movement linked to development aid, and from that case, then there was a review of UK aid. So, you know, you can see how problematic it is. The cases are not actually reviewed, because then, you know, a lot of good things can happen when there is a review and there is more accountability. So that’s a problem. From an international point of view, development aid is exempt from the rules of the GPA, so is excluded from the coverage of the GPA via various provisions. But then the old version of the GPA had a little footnote to Article One that excluded development aid. Now there is a bigger provision in Article Three, I think of the GPA, that excludes development aid procurement from the coverage of the GPA. So development procurement is essentially excluded from the international agreement. So it’s more a matter of soft law engagement.

Marta Andhov  31:59  

Okay, so to sort of try to summarize what we discussed, if I could ask Anna, if you could give me a type of three bullet points of where you see the main challenges lie within the area of development and procurement, and what you’re hoping, what could be happening in upcoming years, how we could improve it. Just, you know, to give you example, it sounds like the standing you, I think, mentioned in both of the cases, standing is a bit of a problem, right? So how we can improve the area. So if you could give me four challenges and improvements about, you know, two, three bullet points, would you think?

Annamaria La Chimia  32:44  

I think that improving transparency would be really good, of all development tenders. So there are new methods. Like the open contracting partnership methods and the publication of open data standards, I think that would be really good if this could be applied to development aid procurement in full, regardless of whether it’s a multilateral donor or a bilateral donor. I think we need more information. We need information, and this is something that I really have been advocated for in my book as well. We need information, not just on the award of the tender, but on who participates to the tender, because only by understanding who participates to the tender, we can see where the weaknesses lie. Possibly we should seek gender disaggregated data to understand whether Aid projects support gender equality and how they affect gender equality. We should try to encourage more dialog and discourse within donors such as China and something else that I’ve advocated strongly in my writings on tied aid, that’s been trying to make sure that development aid is not sidelined within discourse of international procurement law and within the agreement on international procurement because if we have new members, and if we expand memberships to developing countries, and we need to make sure that they have something to gain, and that this membership means that no one will ever tie aid anymore or use aid for their own interest only. So opening up trade should remove this sort of contradiction when we talk about international trade. And so these, I would say, are the three big points. 

Marta Andhov  35:01  

Yeah.

Annamaria La Chimia  35:02  

I haven’t thought about this for a very long time. So thank you for making me think again about tied aid. I know that there is now a second review of the untying aid process within the OECD. So I hope they are listening and take on board the recommendations.

Marta Andhov  35:28  

Lovely I really appreciate your thoughts, because as we started to chat a little bit before we started recording, this is sort of area that I think not so many of us had a chance to really interact, so learning a little bit more about it, and it’s also important, because the effect, the impact that you really have through this type of agreements and procurement are quite huge. So thank you for sharing your thoughts about this with us, and I think that with this, we can conclude The Main substantive part for the podcast episode today on the development aid, tied aid and public procurement. The… 

Marta Andhov  36:13  

Oh, Aha, maybe one more thought?

Annamaria La Chimia  36:16  

Yes, no, maybe one more thought.

Marta Andhov  36:19  

Yes, please. 

Annamaria La Chimia  36:19  

Was more the fact that I just wanted to say that, you know, we have focused a lot on tied aid, but there is a lot more in the field of development aid that one could look at. And for example, the role that development banks have in terms of encouraging reforms in developing countries and supporting reforms in developing countries. And this is an area that I have explored as well throughout my research. After the book on tied aid, this is where my research has moved to. And I think that there is really a lot that is going on at the moment at the international level, especially when we look at processes such as the MAPS review, for example, for reviewing developing countries and developed countries process. But also, and I think this is linked to what you were saying in terms of why it is important for those who don’t do development in general, Well, nowadays we talk about the sustainable development goals so much, and because the sustainable development goals now apply to developed and developing countries. But before that, there were the Millennium Development Goals. So opening up a door to development means also recognizing all these different aspects, interacting with different disciplines and interacting with other methodologies as well. And I think that this has probably been the most interesting part of doing development procurement for me.

Marta Andhov  38:02  

Yeah, that’s a very important element undoubtedly. And what, of course, what we do is that when we will be finishing our recording, I will ask Anna to share some links and some references to some of her work that we will obviously include in the description of the episode. So we obviously very much encourage any of our listeners that might have interest in deepening the knowledge around that area, go to our website, check Anna’s work, and get the book also, of course. 

Marta Andhov  38:37  

And yeah, let’s move on, because time is running out, and the dessert for today is actually something that I really was looking forward because there are maybe two aspects that I wanted to preface our conversation. So for the dessert, I asked Anna whether she would be so kind to talk to me today a little bit about becoming a leader, a leadership position in academia, which in itself, it’s quite specific type of leadership, if you compare it with managerial role with within company, let’s say. But the reason why I particularly wanted to talk to Anna about it, or that was one of the first questions that came to my mind when we were setting up this podcast, is twofold. One is that for someone like myself, and I will make it a little bit about me, so I hope that our listeners could forgive me, but I am also hoping that some of our listeners, particularly some of the PhDs that we know that listen and we’re very grateful for might find themselves in a similar situation as we’re describing, and that is what it means to do a career in legal academia in a country that you’re not from. So you know that in itself is a different type of also challenge and how you thrive in such an environment. And Anna, both with the achievement of her Professorship of course and different leadership role, is, I think, a good person to talk about. And the second is more an anecdote that that I wanted to share with you, Anna, because I had a very vivid memory of the last time seeing you on a big stage, and that was your global revolution conference, the last one. And it’s a starting of the of that event, and you heading it, and at the very beginning, slides don’t work, some technical things don’t work. And I just remember sitting there and just sweating through my palms, and I just was looking and I was in full awe of the fact that, you know, I don’t know what it comes to organizing that scale of event, but I have some understanding what it means to organize a larger scale event, and how much work goes to it, and how much, you know, you kind of invest in that, but you just showed so much grace and just, you know, like, how eased you came into that podium, and how much you sort of made all of us also at ease that that thing doesn’t work, But we let go of it. We still are here and, you know, I think that also speaks a bit to the leadership role, how you also know in which moments to let go, in which moments to really, you know, tense about different things. So this is a very long, obviously, introduction to the chat that I wanted to have with you. But I wanted to mention all that why I think it would be great to hear from you. So Anna, what it means to lead such a, you know, well-respected procurement law group, how the path of your leadership over the years, you know, culminating with that newest role, was and what advice you would give to us that may be on different stage of career, but kind of maybe aim at some point to be able to do something of a similar nature. 

Annamaria La Chimia  42:13  

Oh, well, well, thank you, Marta, that’s a lot to take on, and you brought me back to that moment on that stage. That I still remember, I remember I was crying laughing inside. It was, you know, the first conference after covid, I think the center wasn’t 100% ready to stop our points. It was hilarious and terrible at the same time. Yeah, but that, I think you know, when it comes to crisis, what can you do your attitude, I think, sets the mood. As you said, if I started screaming and getting upset against the PowerPoint, so why wasn’t it working, I would have ruined it for everyone. So I just… Yes, so I just continued and laughed, and it was a very understanding public so I was lucky, because it’s a big conference, but somehow everybody is so friendly and you feel you are amongst friends. So to many extent, this has made it easy for me at that time. So how it is? It’s certainly a lot of work, but it’s also a great honor. It’s a great honor to follow in the footsteps of someone who has done so much for the community and it is a big responsibility. It certainly feels like that. I came to the role while we were under covid at the aftermath of Brexit. And for me, Brexit was a big challenge as an academic, as a person, because, of course, I’m European, so Brexit was a big setback, a big shock, but also in a way, I saw even more the importance of making the PPRG and academia in general, you know, a bridge to Europe. So that, for me, became my objective as the new director of the PPRG, making sure that Brexit does not mean we distance ourselves from Europe and from our European friends. And if anything, I believe my main objective has been to create links even closer to Europe and with groups that weren’t first associated with us. So that has been my objective from the very beginning. And I think, yes, we provide a forum, a platform for sharing best practices, for understanding what happens in the rest of the world, and I take this quite seriously, this as a responsibility. And can discuss whether, you know, Brexit has meant, as you know, for the UK, new procurement rules for the UK. And we can discuss whether they are better or worse, whether we needed Brexit or not to have these new rules. But one thing that we cannot deny is that Brexit means being out of everything else that surrounds procurement practices and innovation within the EU. And this is for me, is the real loss for the UK. So all the initiatives undertaken by the European Commission, by DG GROW, for example, the specific funds and the collaboration events that happen at the European level, such as the Big Buyers Initiatives and all the other initiatives in terms of innovation, sustainable procurement, green procurement, the UK is now out of them. But the PPRG can be that bridge can be the bridge for continuing to see what happens in Europe and how we can share our best practices with Europeans, and how Europeans can share their best practices with us.

Marta Andhov  46:49  

I think that if you look at the university, I’m being a little bit sort of naughty here. I’m just trying to find an adjective. But do you think that that’s sort of an easy message within the current climate, if that is of the university or the community that is local to you, that openness, or whether that also comes with certain, you know, challenges or not everyone kind of is broadly on. Do you feel like you need to make a case that we shouldn’t be just focusing, for example, on the UK research and UK education and, let’s say, broader Commonwealth, but it’s important for us to still build those relationships. Or do you think that that’s broadly within the procurement community that has been developed over the decades in Nottingham and through public procurement group, is that kind of given.

Annamaria La Chimia  47:46  

I think that within the university, this feeling of openness has remained very much so actually, I have to say, Nottingham is intensifying its links with other, you know, European universities and with other, you know, universities around the world. I think that feeling of wanting to be connected within an openness within the university has certainly remained. Um within practice for the UK community, I think at the moment, it is all taken by the novelty of the bill of the act, actually the Procurement Act, because the bill has just been approved by parliament, and so it’s just been enacted. At the moment, I think that the practice in communities taken by the novelty of the bill, and it’s our duty to remind them that a bill is just that a legislation is nothing if it’s not well implemented, and to implement something well, we can learn from others, even if they have other rules that are slightly different from ours. Knowing about best practices remains important. So this is a message that I hope with the last procurement global revolution conference and with the next that we can give to everybody in the UK, but also at the same time, I hope that European officials can see the developments that are happening in the UK as something not to dismiss because the UK is out of Europe, and so we dismiss them, but let’s be grown up about it, and let’s see if there is something interesting that can be taken as an inspiration for possible reforms of the EU. So I’m hoping that there will be this sort of maturity from other countries as well. You know, because what has happened, has happened the PPRG as a group, we are very open, we are very European, we come from all over the world. If I could I would reverse Brexit, but I can’t.

Marta Andhov  50:03  

No, you need to… Absolutely.

Annamaria La Chimia  50:03  

So let’s make the most, which is very much, yeah, which is very much this British stand of, okay, let’s be practical about it. No?

Marta Andhov  50:13  

No, and I think that it speaks back to your point about building bridges, right? 

Annamaria La Chimia  50:16  

Yeah.

Marta Andhov  50:20  

I wanted to ask you, Anna, what are some of your thoughts, reflections, or maybe advice that you would give to yourself just before taking, you know, this director role, after being in that role for some time right now, and mainly what I wonder, you know, how you enter this space and how you carry through on the one hand side, you know, upkeeping the work that has been done and paying homage, to certain extent, to all the people that contribute to that, to the previous leaders, and how, at the same time, you kind of build your, you know, the vision for the Center for the years to come. How you, in other words, how you keep the bridge to the past, but how you build the bridge forward, how you make something, you know, more your own, and so on. Because I think that whenever I think about this type of elements, you know, when you are working with various people and collaborative, also project at some point, when you want to make, not necessarily your own way, but when you have a position to lead, you learn something in the past, and you also have some ideas how you would want to change things, right? 

Annamaria La Chimia  51:35  

Yeah. 

Marta Andhov  51:36  

How it’s sort of playing that role. Because I feel like it’s quite, you know, delicate, right? How do you manage?

Annamaria La Chimia  51:43  

Yeah, it’s very delicate. Because, you know, when you start something from scratch, you have all the challenges of starting from scratch, but you start the way you want it, and there is no previous reference point when you are taking something from that has already been there, you inevitably will always say, Oh, we’ve always done this. So you have to graciously try to say, Oh, well, but now we’re doing this way. But I think the most important thing, and that’s an advice that I give to myself and to others, and I try to remember all the time, is to listen and engage with everybody, you know, try to involve everybody and then, and then own your own decision, you know, try to identify what it is that you didn’t like in the past, and what you thought could have been strengthened and should have been strengthened. And you want to do different and try to do that and follow that direction. But it’s always important, I think, to engage with everyone that is involved, that will be affected by the by the decision and having an objective. You know, for me, as I told you at the beginning, for me, the objective has been to open up as much as I could the PPRG, because I want to keep this connection going with Europe, with the US, with South Africa. And these are my main objectives, as well as maintaining the high standards that we’ve always had in the past. And that is probably the scariest part, you know, having to maintain that high standards and making sure that everything stays at the same level, because it’s been set very, very. Very, very high. So…

Marta Andhov  53:44  

Of course, no, but I think that you know, you what I take particularly, also, you know for myself, but also in general, within the podcast, what we can take out of it, there are two elements that really strike me, you know, as these little golden nuggets that I take out of this part of our conversation. One was the very beginning when we, you know, we’re reflecting to that opening panel on the conference, when you mentioned focus on people and the atmosphere, rather than this perfectionist view, right? Because I will be very honest with you. I. Probably I couldn’t maintain my nerves. I probably would, I don’t think I would scream, but… 

Annamaria La Chimia  54:23  

You would.

Marta Andhov  54:23  

On my face, you would see that, you know that I’m not happy and stressed and so on but I think that this is such a wonderful thing that you mean just focus on the bigger picture of the atmosphere and the people that are there with you. And I think that really carries through the leadership that you’re sharing with us. Focus on the people who build the bridge, listen and get everyone involved. 

Marta Andhov  54:46  

And I think, from my side as an observer, maybe a comment, and I wonder whether you can comment on that is, I think that is also part that comes to my mind is just also, just allow yourself to be yourself. Just bring, bring whoever you are like. The reason why you’ve been given that role, what you earn that role right, is because someone’s seen the potential and the credibility that you are to fulfill a specific role. And each one of us is unique and has our own style. So also, I guess, trusting into that, rather than maybe trying to fill shoes and sort of almost, you know, imitate someone else that you might think you’re supposed to be in that role, is that, what do you think about that? 

Annamaria La Chimia  55:34  

Yes, yes, absolutely, you know, because at the end, if you have to make a mistake, it’s better if you make it yourself or who you are other than you know, wanting to just replicate other people. So that is definitely important to be yourself and you know, and be what you believe in and I think that is very important. And you said as well, you know, you mentioned at the beginning, something about being given this role, which is for me, it has been important. You know, the recognition and you need to be lucky to find people that recognize your value and then give you space. And I think you know on that I was fortunate in Nottingham. This was not my first leadership role within the university, because I’ve had a few important roles before, but were within the university, like leading the research cluster, which is a university cluster of interdisciplinary research. And I also led the equality committee, as you mentioned before. And I have to just make a little note, I’m no longer the chair of the equality committee, I was but I’m no longer the chair I helped fund, I helped create the committee, but I’m no longer leading it. And I think that you know, throughout all this process, what has been important is the possibility to be given the space to do that. So I remember when I went to my former head of school and said, We don’t have an equality committee. We need an equality committee. And I didn’t… and I found an open door. So, you know, if you see that something is needed, put yourself forward for it. You know, identify a need, put yourself forward for that need. But then also, it’s not done, but just be yourself. You need to be lucky to find someone who recognizes the value of what you are saying and your idea. And I was lucky at the time, because I had a great head of school who recognized that we needed to change things. We needed to have an equality committee and and so that is started, and my leadership journey started there, more than with the PPRG. With the PPRG I’m continuing, if anything.

Marta Andhov  58:25  

Yeah, no, I think that you know, the closing comment here that I would want to make is, undoubtedly, I recognize and agree with what you are mentioning. In all our career paths, a bit of luck is always necessary. And coming across the good people and people that give you space and give you an opportunity. 

Marta Andhov  58:48 

But the element that I also wanted to underline, because it’s not just luck, and we tend to also, I think maybe a little bit as women talk often, a bit, maybe too much about luck, but I think it’s also a lot of hard work, and it’s also the courage, it’s the courage to actually go somewhere and say, Hey, I have this idea, or I would want to do that, you know, give me a space to kind of try to give it a go, right? So I think that that element is also because… it takes a lot, I think, work and courage to say, you know, and I think, you know, something like equality at the university setting. We should be doing something like that. I imagine that there is also great resistance. You know, not only the positivity and people that kind of support you, but there always will be some resistance, and it’s and it’s always a bit of hard work included in all of it, so… 

Annamaria La Chimia  59:40  

No, thank you very much for this comment, Marta, because yes, absolutely. You know, it’s a trademark of women to say luck and no courage and yes, absolutely, but what I meant is, is also that, you know, once you are a leader, you need to recognize how to give opportunities to others. And this, I hope, is something that I will do with my leadership, and that’s why I want to create spaces for early career researcher to be seen, to be heard, because that’s that’s what is necessary. It is necessary to create a space and then, you know the element of courage, the resistance. Oh yes, of course. You can imagine how much resistance… We are already, well, yeah.

Marta Andhov  60:30  

Yeah yeah, of course. 

Annamaria La Chimia  60:32  

We don’t need anything, you know, we don’t need to do anything. That is something that you will encounter always, all the time in every community. I think.

Marta Andhov  60:42  

Absolutely there will always be a challenge, one of my really great friends always says you just need to find an alliance of willing. That’s what you just need to do. Just find an alliance of willing. Well, Anna, it was an absolute pleasure. Thank you so much for spending time with me and sharing not only your research expertise and work but also you know how you moved through all these different stages of your career as someone that leads in many of our eyes, you know our generation of academics and opens the doors to collaboration, we are very grateful for that. It was a pleasure to have you. Thank you, Anna.

Annamaria La Chimia  61:25  

Thank you very much, Marta. It was a real pleasure to be here with you and to talk with you today. Thank you.

Marta Andhov  61:33  

Thanks. This was Bestek, the Public Procurement Podcast.

About Bestek  61:40  

This was Bestek, the Public Procurement Podcast. Do you want to contribute to today’s discussion? Then share your thoughts on LinkedIn or Twitter. Do you have an idea for a future episode? Write to us at www.bestekpodcast.com.

Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.