For these reasons, we believe it is necessary to sharpen the focus on HOW change happens. Continuing with the example of mandatory AVR, the interesting questions are not only what this practice concretely looks like but also: How did this change occur in Ireland? What were the key factors that made such an important reform possible? Who were the actors involved in the process? Why is it so difficult to transfer this practice to other countries? What are key factors preventing such an important reform? We argue that just by asking these questions we shift our perspective from a mere description of what needs to be changed to the process that makes such change possible (how). Thereby the hope is to extract useful learnings from the experience of the project countries and improve our work as ‘change agents’. This is why the four regional consultations and the EU workshop with CSOs provided a dedicated space for stakeholders to tell their success stories of how change came about in their jurisdiction. Additionally, the Factsheets developed in the framework of this project not only detail what the identified promising practices look like but also explain what made them possible, what obstacles had to be overcome, what implementation challenges still remain, and above all what lessons learned can be drawn from these experiences. While conversations on how change happens are common they too often occur on the ‘sidelines’. The goal of this project was to make such conversations explicit, to better understand what works and what does not work and draw valuable lessons on being more effective. Exposed to these questions and methodologies, the experts who participated in the project consultations reacted in different ways. On the one hand, we observed a great interest among participants on change processes. This perspective appeared newer to some than others. On the other hand, some participants found it difficult to shift perspective and reflect on why things occur the way they do. In view of this, some overall learnings can be drawn on how to shift to a change perspective. Firstly, it is useful to make this shift in focus explicit, e.g. by investing time at the beginning of each project activity such as the roundtables and consultations to explicitly discuss the purpose and methodology to focus on how change happens. One way to introduce this may be by providing easy and accessible background information on this perspective, e.g. by explaining the systemic approach, the change formula, or the idea of a Theory of Change (on the tools of change see below chapter 3). This would, however, need to be carefully prepared in advance to be presented in a humble and credible way. It has to be clarified that these are not theories but that they have very practical implications (as Kurt Lewin stated “There is nothing so practical as a good theory”).13 Introductions to new methods need to be kept as simple as possible and it needs to be clarified how they can make the work more effective and impactful. The methods can provide frameworks for reflection, discussion and planning while the practitioners working on the ground remain the experts on how change happens. Newly introduced theories or approaches should not be presented as the ‘ultimate truth’ but simply as additional perspectives that help to better understand change and make impactful interventions. Secondly, discussions on change require sufficient time and an adequate setting. They require an adequate introduction to the relevant questions, presenting concrete examples and specific experiences. Discussions are best placed in working group settings to allow each participant to share their perspective. The moderation can be decisive for their effectiveness and should patiently ensure that the discussion stays focused on the how and does not deviate to what does not work or technicalities of promising practices. 13. Kurt Lewin, ‘Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers by Kurt Lewin’ (Harpers & Brothers Publishers, 1952) 169. 11