Platform-based work is becoming ever more widespread and attracts growing attention of researchers and policy-makers. Still, there are many unknowns in regard to the actual spread of platform-based activities in the EU and the characteristics of people offering their services via this type of intermediary. To fill this knowledge gap, representative surveys administered by Wouter Zwysen, Agnieszka Piasna and Jan Drahokoupil from the European Trade Union Institute (ETUI) examined the extent of platform-based work in Europe and the profile of ‘platform worker’. In our Social Policy and Politics course we hosted an interactive lecture by Dr. Wouter Zwysen, Senior Researcher from ETUI, who shed light on these under-explored aspects.

ETUI surveys on platform work have so far taken place three times: in 2018-2019, in Spring 2021 and Fall 2021. To date, they represent an invaluable source of information on platform-based work both due to their high coverage methodological rigor.

Based on the survey data, Dr. Zwysen admitted that platform work was still a relatively rare phenomenon in the EU. Only about 15 million people, or approx. 5 % of the European workforce, have generated income via Internet-based platform. A much higher percentage has been involved with more broadly defined Internet-based work, which involved e.g. buying or selling products on the Internet, which however was not classified as platform work in the ETUI survey.

As for platform workers’ characteristics, they usually were a bit younger than the average working population of a given country, especially among those who sourced most of their income from platform work. Both genders were represented, although it seems that similar patterns of gender segregation characterized platform and offline work: men tended to be overrepresented in transport service-providing platforms, whereas women did the majority of remote clickwork jobs. In west European EU member states migrants (in particular those from non-EU countries) were also overrepresented among platform workers.

Most platform workers considered their platform activity as an additional source of income, but they tended to combined it more frequently with atypical / vulnerable type of offline job than with regular full time employment. The contribution of platform-generated income averaged at 10 %, but for some 10% of workers, especially those working for transport service-providing entities, it constituted 75% of their total income. This indicates that even though platforms are mostly considered as a source of side-income, a ‘pocket money’ addition, for some people they are a primary means of making a living.

In terms of recent trends in platform employment, the Covid-19 pandemic led to a significant increase of platform-based activities; more than 50% of respondents acknowledged starting their platform-based work in 2020 or 2021. At the same time, this period has also witnessed great turnover on platform markets, with many startups, closures and mergers between platform providers. The future will likely see even more platform-based work, which may indicate the need for better regulation of this form of activity, especially if there are indications for control over a platform worker performed by the platform / algorithm. The recent regulatory proposals by the European Commission list a set of characteristics that, if met by a give platform, would indicate their employer status and obliged the entities to offer far-reaching protections to individuals working for them.

Dr. Zwysen’s lecture was not only highly interesting due to its contents. Thanks to an innovative use of Zoom polling, we managed to activity co-shape the talk thanks to student contributions and has some really engaging discussions. This was simply… platform-based lecturing at its best!

by Jinwon Mun, James Nguyen and Gergana Dinkova

In each edition of the Social Policy and Politics course, students prepare social campaigns on causes that they find socially important. It was not different in Spring: we had two teams that addressed pertinent social causes. Below we post the description and the presentation of the campaign prepared by Jinwon, James and Gergana, which seeks to promote foster parenting in Bulgaria.  

Need of action

Bulgaria has a significant number of orphans. According to Bulgarian National Statistics Institute (Kandilarov, 2019), children living in poverty are 26.6% and the state has the highest rate in Europe of children separated from their parents because of poverty, physical or mental disability and lack of support.

There are two different types of care for orphans: Orphanage and foster family care. According to the 2007 documentary, “Bulgaria’s Abandoned Children”, there are many orphans with physical or mental issues. The disabled orphans are staying in outdated orphanages, which lack any types of renovations.

The case in Bulgaria

The development of orphanage is a hardly achievable task, having in mind the number of children and lack of teachers and nurses. Still, foster family care is a better alternative for orphans in Bulgaria. Sadly, this practice is not common, and many families prefer not to give it a chance.

Western example – Germany

Germany, for example, has a well-developed foster care system. When children are left behind, they can meet new foster family and have a chance for a better life. To become foster parents, people need to attend “Fostering School”. They will receive funds from the government; however, they need to have a stable annual income and suitable environment for raising a child. There is no requirement for a legal marriage, but there is one for German language proficiency, one for recognition of the cultural and historical background of the state and the child’s (PflegeKinderBerlin.de, 2022). In Germany, a foster child can live with a foster family permanently, until 18 years old, or for a certain amount of time. Also, whenever a child’s family has a serious issue, the child can stay with foster parents until its biological family resolves their issues.

Bulgaria’s lack of initiative

Bulgarians have no interest in being foster parents. 63% of the Bulgarians would not become foster parents under any circumstances (NFCA, 2021). Because of that, we want to do a campaign for Bulgarians to rethink about being foster parents. This is a noble act of giving a child the opportunity to live a stable life in a healthy environment. It is not a popular opinion among Bulgarian citizens and this campaign’s aim is to spread awareness for this initiative.

Measures/actions

We will promote the campaign through social media. These platforms enjoy a huge number of users who can spread the word of this mission and make a positive change not only for orphan children, but for childless families as well.

The campaign is available for feedback from Bulgarian citizens. Through social media platforms they can gain information and ask questions about the initiative, express their opinion and get help in potential fostering decisions.

Distribution channel

We will upload the poster which include the image of family and phrase, which can increase the media. The foster includes the information of how many children are separated from their parents, and it has “GET INVOLVED!” to encourage being foster family care. Since we will use image, the good social media distribution channel will be Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook. Because of that, we will use these platforms.

Target audience

The primary targeted audience is Bulgarian families with stable annual income, warm homes and willingness to be good parents to a little child in need. Orphanages are not a better option, having in mind their poor conditions and lack of proper care for the kids. Each family with the desire of expansion will be provided with the needed information and requirements and will have be quickly assigned a social worker that can help the speedy permission of fostering or adoption (European Social Fund, 2015).

The secondary target of this campaign will be the Bulgarian government. The Bulgarian Ministry of Labor and Social Policy (2022) has a goal of deinstitutionalization of child care in 15 years but it was not successful since many Bulgarians do not want to be foster parents. The campaign may not evoke the public mobilization but it might get people’s reflect on and comment about that policy. The secondary audience, Bulgarian government may get a chance to see the current situation, people’s willingness to take care about children and the reason why they do or do not want to do that.

Outcome

The success of this campaign will have a great outcome for Bulgarian orphans. The number of abandoned kids will reduce significantly, and Bulgarian families will come to understand that giving a child a chance for better life is not a bad or scary idea, as the majority of people think. The decrease in the number of orphans will potentially lead to decrease in poverty and unemployment among young people and will contribute to a more stable future generation. Also, the government might be able to check people’s reaction toward the foster family care system through the campaign. When they see that, they can find the reason and reform the policy related to the foster family care which can encourage Bulgarian people to be foster parents.

by Maria Terzieva, Erica Desjardins, Sviatoslav Hryhorenko

In each edition of the Social Policy and Politics course, students prepare social campaigns on causes that they find socially important. It was not different in Spring: we had two teams that addressed pertinent social causes. Below we post the description and the presentation of the campaign prepared by Maria, Erica and Sviatoslav, which advocates broad access to high-quality sexual education in all EU Member States. 

Proper and thorough teachings about the cognitive, social, and physical aspects of sexuality to the young adult generations contribute positive impacts on one’s reproductive health. The lack of high-quality sex education poses many risks. More specifically, experts argue insufficient reproductive education can result in high rates of involuntary teenage pregnancy and high rates of people suffering from HIV/AIDS/STIs.

The EU declares that each Member State holds the responsibility of providing sexual and reproductive education to young people. Although nearly every Member State declares sexuality education as mandatory, the quality and content greatly vary throughout the EU which results in major inconsistencies regarding this topic. Sexuality education is not mandatory in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania. Additionally, it has been observed that Nordic and Benelux countries are known for more comprehensive sexual education, whereas Eastern and Southern Europe have insufficient or nonexistent sex education.

The present issue to improve is the lack or insufficient extent of concrete, high quality, and consistent sexual and reproductive health education among young people. Sexual education can include a wide range of topics, as well as provide better understandings of one’s health, combat gender biases, combat health risks, reduce involuntary pregnancies, deter sexual abuse, and much more.

We suggest the three following policies on how to provide better sexuality education. Firstly, sex education should become a standalone class provided by the different education systems of the EU member states. This way teacher training on how to approach the sensitive subject and curriculum adjustments by the national ministries will be expected. Making the campaign official on a national level would also give the right to different monitoring organs to require information about the quality and contents of the classes. Secondly, school and public libraries should be urged to provide up-to-date books on sex education so everyone can have access to them. Thirdly, peer educator programs would also be prudent to cover even more young adults who distrust authorities.

This campaign would target kids aged 10 to 17 in both rural and urban areas. This will also include kids who are homeschooled. The second target audience of the suggested initiative is teachers, school staff, and local opinion leaders: people who could potentially answer the questions on the topic and are trusted by both kids and their parents. The third one is parents. The main distribution channels for the campaign would be social media pages as well as on-site school and library posters. With the idea of normalizing the topic and its discussion, opinion leaders would also contribute with their exposure to the publicity of our campaign. The “Sex education is our right” campaign will constitute an additional source of information for kids to rely on. It will also enable a two-way communication channel between kids and educators with an opportunity of remaining anonymous (an important factor for many children throughout a sensitive-topic education). The social media page will have posts about human anatomy, sex education, contraception, etc. The information will be provided in a simple easy-to-read manner. There will be video materials for a better learning experience. Our campaign will focus on educating children on the topic to assure safe sexual experiences, lower the level of unexpected pregnancies, and lower the number of sexual assaults. Rather than convincing pupils that abstinence is the way of protecting and avoiding the dangers of STIs and pregnancy, they will be taught sex education and healthy practices of intimate interaction.

In recent years, young adults around Europe have been demanding that they have access to quality sex education in order to have a better understanding and freedom with their bodies. We as part of that community as well as representatives of the non-governmental sector would like to second that notion and thus, urge the acceptance of our campaign. We understand there could be many challenges such as the unification of agendas on the topic, public opinion, and abuse of the program to further harmful stereotypes, but we are motivated and hopeful. Sex education is a right and should be regarded as such by the whole of Europe.

Our 2022 European Semester focused on whether Bulgaria is ready to meet its EU-level commitments and move away from coal in a socially sustainable manner. Debate participants – industry stakeholders, NGO representatives and regional actors – assessed the country’s current ‘coal exit’ plans and prospects for green and just transition from the point of view of their organizations.

The event started off with the presentation by Bela Galgoczi, Senior Researcher at the European Trade Union Institute, who provided an EU-wide overview of the ongoing coal exit process. According to Dr. Galgoczi, moving away from coal can in a relatively ‘low hanging fruit’ given that only 185,000 jobs, or 0.15% of the total employment in the EU, are linked to coal extraction and coal-based electricity generation. This is a very limited number in comparison with other economic sectors awaiting ‘green’ revolutions, such as the automotive sector. At the same time, he acknowledged that coal-linked economic activity and jobs are concentrated in ten European regions, which calls for a carefully designed, targeted policy approach. Dr. Galgoczi provided several examples of ‘coal-exit’ practices from across the EU. Portugal, for instance, became coal-free eight years before the planned deadline thanks to large-scale investments in renewable energy sources made by the country’s largest power plant. Germany, on the other hand, established the so-called Coal Commission in the late 2010s that brought together various stakeholders with the aim of devising the country’s coal exit plan. With the budget of nearly 50 billion euro, Germany’s Commission is the largest green-transition initiative launched so far by an individual member state.

Apostol Dyankov, Senior Climate Expert at WWF Bulgaria confirmed Dr. Galgoczi’s point about the concentrated nature of coal-dependent jobs. He subsequently presented the results of WWF Bulgaria and the Friedrich Ebert Foundation’s study on challenges faced by Stara Zagora, Kyustendil and Pernik – the three Bulgarian regions that are most affected by the green transition. He pointed to the lack of inclusion of regional and local actors in the development and implementation of coal exit plans, at the same time acknowledging the need to raise local administrative capacities, especially at the municipal level. In regard to economic scenarios for coal exit, the WWF expert acknowledged that the mobilization of private financing and mixed-type investments would be needed to diversify economies of the coal-depended regions. In the second part of his talk, Mr. Dyankov presented the results of a survey that WWF conducted among youth in Bulgaria and Western Balkans’ coal regions. In contrast to their older counterparts, young people are hopeful in the green transition of their regions and perceive it more in terms of an opportunity than a threat. At the same time, they were unsure about the extent of EU involvement in the transition process, which suggests that in the future, more publicity should be granted to the European Green Deal and its Just Transition Fund arm.

The debate’s second panel took a form of a roundtable with stakeholders: Dr. Rumyana Grozeva from Stara Zagora’s Regional Development Agency, Mr. Apostol Dyankov from WWF Bulgaria and Ms. Liliya Chobanova representing ContourGlobal/ Maritza East, one of Bulgaria’s largest power plants. In regard to Bulgaria’s coal exit date, Mr Dyankov from WWF Bulgaria claimed that scientific elaborations recommend 2030 as the latest possible deadline to phase out coal extraction and coal-based energy generation. Ms. Chobanova from ContourGlobal Martisa 3, on the other hand, advocated a slightly later date, in view of the relatively high levels of Bulgaria’s dependence on coal and the necessity to ensure the security of energy supply.

The stakeholders also outlined possible scenarios for the green transition in Bulgaria. Ms. Chobanova argue that the coal exit should be gradual, and possibly involve the use of gas as a fossil fuel involving much lower emission levels. Mr. Dyankov, on the other hand, contended that following the Russian invasion on Ukraine it would be difficult to rely on gas as a potential energy source, and thus government and private investors’ efforts should focus exclusively on promoting investment in renewable energy sources. Dr. Grozeva from Stara Zagora’s Regional Development Agency discussed several potential ‘greening’ solutions for her region, such as the use of solar energy and hydrogen production. She also highlighted the need for training and retraining in order to ensure the availability of qualified workforce capable of bring about the transition. Stara Zagora can be considered as a positive example in this respect in view of its rich technical education offer at both university and secondary school levels.

On 8 March 2022 our Social Policy and Politics in the EU course featured a talk and discussion with Goran Lukič, co-founder of Slovenia’s Migrant Counselling Office/ Workers Counselling Office.

Slovenia is often viewed as an example of successful economic transformation and the most ‘social’ postcommunist country. Beneath the surface, however, it is a country of big contrasts, with groups such as atypical and migrant workers are largely excluded from the benefits of growth and prone to abuse and exploitation.

Migrant Counselling Office was established exactly in response to exploitation of migrant workers from former Yugoslav republics during the financial crisis of the late 2000s. Slovenian trade unions back then were incapable of offering complex and multidimensional support that this group of employees required. As a result, Goran  and like-minded activists launched an organization that provided up-to-date info on workers’ rights and Slovenia’s legal setup in the employment sphere. Parallel to large-scale information-sharing, the activists launched advocacy on behalf of the workers and intervened by contacting their unlawful employers and demanding that overdue wages were paid. Such interventions did not only enable the workers to receive their rightful pay, but they also helped them realize the extent of exploitation that they had been subject to. This realization, in turn, was very important for workers themselves to regain their dignity and feeling of worthiness.

The Office’s activities were initially financed by EU funds, but the EU project that had provided the financial means ended in 2015. The organization was faced with a dilemma: it could either cease – or at least significantly reduce – its activities, or shift towards membership-fees-based financing model. The Office has chosen the latter path, which has proven the choice. At present, it is an NGO with a 2,000-strong membership base that provides the organization with a steady material basis, employing five activists with expert knowledge in the fields of employment law and policy. Rebranded into Workers Counselling Office to highlight its inclusive nature, it is a recognizable actor in Slovenia, present in the media and participating in government consultations on labour-market legislative proposals. At the same time, it has preserved initial approach based on interpersonal contacts and attention to individual workers’ concerns.

Goran’s account was fascinating insofar as it showed that in the era of rigid financial frameworks and project orientation of NGOs’ activities, it is possible to set up and successfully run a membership-based organization. The high quality of support provided to workers and the personal attention they receive, are key to members’ loyalty, which makes the Workers Counselling Office as sustained activity.

by Mihaela Voydenova and Donald Xhoxhaj

During the Spring 2021 semester, just like last year, students taking the Social Policy and Politics in the EU course worked in groups on socially-oriented campaigns. In their presentations and campaign descriptions they were to outline the rationale for your campaign; measures / actions that the campaign will involve; its target audience as well as its projected outcomes. On the course’s website, we will present some of their ideas in the form of separate entries.

This Social campaign ‘Support the Unsupported’ aims to assist the people in need of healthcare services and assistance. We are focusing on the ones who live in the rural areas and cannot afford to visit their GP, get the medication they need and receive a proper treatment. There are 409 villages in Bulgaria, which are inhabited by less than ten people. Furthermore, there are 69 villages inhabited by 1 person like the Gabrovo and Veliko Tarnovo rural area. Even though there are social benefits for the senior citizens and the disabled people, a large number of these two target groups are unable to make use of the long term care programs or the social benefit packages that are being offered. Our goal is to provide them with assistance for their vital needs.

What our campaign has to offers is a number of actions, which will result in longer life span and decrease in the stress levels among seniors/disabled people. The five main objectives are:

• Provide healthcare services by building an emergency room which will be fully equipped and there will be a doctor on duty during the workweek.
• Provide an ambulance if it is not possible to arrange an emergency room. The ambulance is a great option too as it will also be equipped and if there is an urgent situation, the person in need of help can be quickly transported to the nearest hospital.
• Provide a mobile pharmacy, which will collect the medication orders from the villages and later deliver the purchases. If a certain village is not accessible by car due to weather conditions we can offer the same service, carried out by drones.
• Assistants that will be available for household tasks or to provide company for one to two hours.
• Raise awareness of the issue that Bulgaria is dealing with, by organizing informational campaigns, charity bazars and distribution of pamphlets in order to popularize the campaign and include the regular citizens into it.

The target audience of the “Support the Unsupported” campaign could be anyone. From high school/ university students to average working people that can volunteer as assistants or donate money for the campaign’s budget. We could also present the campaign to independent clubs like Interact, Rotary or Lions club, which all help to provide humanitarian services or donate to such initiatives.

As for how the campaign will be financed – it will be a co-financed project between the Bulgarian government and the European Union. The plan is to apply for European project, which will help to partially finance the campaign and the rest of the budget will come from the Government. It is important to mention that this initiative is planned as a permanent project, which will be developed through time.

The main project outcome will be the fact that these target groups will have their voice heard and live a happier, healthier life with less stress that can otherwise affect their current health conditions.

by Lara Kapovic, Nadezhda Dimitrova and Zdravko Zdravkov

During the Spring 2021 semester, just like last year, students taking Social Policy and Politics in the EU course worked in groups to  socially-oriented campaigns. In their presentations and campaign descriptions they were to outline the rationale for your campaign; measures / actions that the campaign will involve; its target audience as well as its projected outcomes. On the course’s website, we will present some of their ideas in the form of separate entries.

Campaign justification:

Romania places third to last in the EU scores for municipal waste recycling. A survey by the European Commission found that 7-8% of all Romanian citizens do not find recycling important, which places them fourth to last in the scores of all EU countries. The country also has the lowest land-filling costs in all of the EU, which gives municipalities an incentive for not advancing recycling initiatives. However, if the people organized and demanded infrastructure for recycling, the municipalities would be forced to at least consider recycling initiatives. Also, we can tell people that the inability of Romania to comply with EU norms might result in significant sanctions which will weigh on the economy in an already COVID-ridden world.

The Romanian population has a very clear reason to demand recycling infrastructure from their government. A study determined that 19% of all deaths in Romania are related to environmental issues in the country. This, again, places Romania at the very top of countries with the highest number of environment-related deaths in the EU. The main reasons were determined as the main contributors to this, one of them being Responsible Consumption and Production – number 12 on the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. Therefore, the Romanian population has a very direct incentive to want to recycle. The proactivity of the Romanian citizens’ is so bad in this aspect, that the biggest recycling plant in Romania is importing 50% of its recycled materials.

We have created this campaign in order to inform the population on the consequences of environmental negligence and urge them to push the government and themselves towards a more sustainable future. We will try to achieve this goal through a variety of different means targeting both the population and the municipalities.

Specific Actions:

For one, 64% of the Romanian population uses YouTube. So, we thought it would be a good idea if we were to create a short informative video, which we could also pay to have made into an ad, with playful animations and a concise and clear message, which we could be used to reach the younger generations. Furthermore, we plan to deploy volunteers to hand out flyers and inform people on the risks, consequences and current results of the failure to recycle.

We also thought that we can approach municipalities and negotiate with them to help organize the installation and subsequent collection of recycling bins. For example, we could offer to place recycling bins in the liveliest squares in the cities and then collect them every 1-2 days and deliver them to recycling plants until the municipalities can organize the logistics themselves. We realize that this is a miniscule contribution to the huge problem, but it is significant and symbolic enough to perhaps inspire the population or show the municipality that there is a need for action.

Target Group:

Our main target group is the younger generation, which has grown up in the age of the Internet and is therefore presumably more aware of the environmental consequences of unsustainable development. We hope to capture both middle school students and university students.

Projected Outcome:

It is difficult to predict any quantitative results from the campaign but goals include a minimum exposure of the campaign of 20 000 people, seeing as how the Youtube video and ad will have a tremendous outreach if we manage to convince Youtube to run it as an ad, which isn’t particularly difficult. The flyers will also reach a significant amount of people since they are cheap and easily distributed.

Covid 19 has taken a hard toll on employment and made it even more difficult for young Europeans to enter the labour market. Following our discussions on the EU’s Youth Guarantee scheme and its post-2020 successor, Youth Employment Support, students in the Social Policy and Politics course came up with highly innovative initiatives supporting labour market inclusion of Europe’s young citizens.

GrEEKS: young people in (digital) public administration

One of the schemes, elaborated by Donald, was a response to the Greek government’s plans to digitalize the country’s public administration by 2023. He suggested that parallel to the reform, young people aged 15-25 are trained in ICT skills in several areas, such as IT services, Business Software, Telecommunication Services, and IT Consulting.

The courses, offered at three different levels of difficulty, would prepare young Greeks to take up career in the digitalized branches of public administration. In addition, the inclusion of IT companies in the training scheme would also make it possible for young people (especially those completing the most advanced level of the training) to establish contact with potential employers from the private sector.

Under Your Nose, or how to (re-)train Croatia’s graduates  

Another interesting policy scheme, elaborated by Lara, sought to address two negative socioeconomic trends in Croatia: i) the extremely high unemployment rate among Croatia’s youth (44.8%), and ii) the related high rates of emigration that force the country to source foreign workforce. Instead of importing labour, Lara argued that fixing the country’s apparent skill mismatch would represent a more efficient solution both in short and medium term. She accordingly suggested that the country’s large pool of unemployment youth should be trained and develop skills needed in most sought-after professions in manufacturing, construction, hospitality and education.

All in all, Lara’s innovative solution to the two problems – youth unemployment and outmigration – is based on the simple idea: invest and activate the resources that are out there, right next to you – or Under Your Nose, as the title of the initiative suggests.

Boosting literacy skills of young Roma adults in Bulgaria

The policy scheme proposed by Zdravko addressed the issue of low levels of literacy among young Roma adults in Bulgaria – the problem that affects even those who have formally completed primary and /or secondary education. He suggested a dedicated two-year training program designed to provide extra training in reading and writing in Bulgarian for Roma youth aged 18-30.

As argued by Zdravko, such a dedicated scheme would greatly enhance the participants’ chances for labour market inclusions, especially that as the scheme progressed, it could also incorporate elements of professional training. He advocated regular monitoring of the initiative, and proposed to measure its success rate by means of a final test and periodic surveys among the graduates.

It is hard to tell whether the policy schemes proposed by the students could break the spell of high young unemployment rates in Europe, especially during the pandemic and in its aftermath. What they have in common, however, in the emphasis on training and practice that reflect the needs of local labour markets, and thus minimize skill mismatches that are the root cause of inactivity and migration.

As part of the ‘Social Policy and Politics in the EU’, each year we organize a debate involving Bulgarian NGO activists and policy experts on a pertinent social issue featuring in the country’s European Semester report.

This year’s European Semester Debate focused on the issue of Roma inclusion in the sphere of education. The choice of topic was not incidental: in late 2020 the EU launched a new Framework for Roma inclusion for 2020-2030, and the so-called National Roma Integration Strategies (NRISs) are to be submitted by individual EU member states until the summer of 2021. Given that Bulgaria’s new NRIS is currently under preparation, the debate provided an opportunity for representatives of civil society organizations and policy experts to assess the achievements and shortcomings of the existing policy measures, and to signal which policies should be emphasized in Bulgaria’ upcoming scheme. The event focused on education given that this policy area has recorded  the most tangible progress in terms of Roma inclusion and equality of opportunities, both in Bulgaria and EU-wide.

The first two presenters in the first panel took stock of the earlier EU framework on Roma inclusion, implemented in 2012-2020. Violeta Naydenova, Senior Policy Analyst at the Open Society European Policy Institute in Brussels, asserted that the 2012 EU initiative succeeded, perhaps in the first time in EU history, in bringing the issue of Roma inclusion (and discrimination) onto EU agenda. At the same time, she criticised the vague formulation of the 2012-2020 Framework’s goals and the non-binding nature of EU member states’ commitments. She also emphasized the necessity to combat anti-gypsyism which she viewed as a root cause of discriminatory attitudes and behaviours towards the Roma people in Bulgaria and other EU Member States.

Teodora Krumova, Program Coordinator at Amalipe Center, focused on the last decade’s achievements in the field of Roma education. 2019 Global Metrics/ Trust for Social Achievement data that she displayed indicate considerable progress in terms of the proportion of Roma pursuing education. Between 2011 an 2019 the share of Roma children attending education facilities increased from 71.6 to 84.1 per cent, with the highest, nearly 20 percentage-point rise recorded in the 15-18 year olds’ group. She also asserted that Roma civil society organizations played a pivotal role in advocating important educational policies such as the abolishment of kindergarten feed; support for secondary school pupils’ transportation; change of financing modalities for school funding; and the introduction of the legal ban for class segregation.

Marina Kirova, Policy Officer from European Commission Representation in Bulgaria, spoke of EU’s involvement in the process of Roma integration. She pointed out that the assessment of labour market and education schemes targeting Roma and other disadvantaged groups in Bulgaria regularly features in the country’s European Semester reports. She also presented EU’s 2020-2030 Framework on Roma inclusion, highlighting its increased focus on internal diversity of EU Roma community, as well as the presence of specific targets and indicators that will allow national and EU authorities to assess EU countries’ progress on the Framework.

The debate’s second panel took a form involved a round table discussion featuring education policy experts of Bulgaria’s most prominent Roma NGOs/ civil society organizations. While speaking about enduring challenges, Ms Krumova, pointed to i) the intensifying segregation of educational facilities, despite the favorable legal framework; ii) the lack of political will at municipal level to pursue effective desegregation policies, and iii) digital exclusion of Roma students, which became particularly acute with the global covid-19 pandemic and the subsequent introduction of distance learning. Liliya Makaveeva from the Integro Association, in turn, sided with Ms Naydenova in acknowledging the omnipresence of anti-gypsyism, or racism towards Roma people, in Bulgaria. She claimed that not every Roma person in the country is socially excluded, but all Roma people are victims of negative stereotypes that effectively prevent their participation in different spheres of social and economic life. This assessment was further confirmed by Miglena Mihaylova, the president of the Leader NGO. As the mother of a fifth-grader Ms Mihaylova would bring several examples of prejudices and negative portrayal of Roma people in education materials in the Bulgarian curricula. In her view, a large-scale inter-cultural awareness campaign and teacher trainings to induce a change in attitudes and public perceptions vis-à-vis the Roma.

While discussing political and policy steps that should be taken in order to ensure tangible progress with the inclusion agenda in the education area, two set of answers were provided. Some round table participants, for instance Ms Makaveeva, pointed to the necessity to empower Roma community and ‘bring it out of passivity’ by encouraging more Roma voices in the public debate. On the other hand, Ognyan Isaev, Director of Education Trust at the Trust for Social Achievement, saw public institutions as those that should modify their practices so that Roma inclusion in education, but also other spheres, is pursued more effectively. He argued that high-level political engagement and the demonstration of will to combat the discriminatory practices on the part of the country’s top political leaders is needed to pave the way to policy change at lower levels. He also stressed the importance of effective coordination  among different government departments in regard to Roma inclusion measures, and the necessity to include Roma civil society organizations in the design, implementation and monitoring of Roma inclusion policies – in the sphere of education and beyond.

On 5 November 2020 the American University in Bulgaria (AUBG) hosted a Zoom debate ‘Turn green and/or stay warm? Addressing climate neutrality and energy poverty in Bulgaria’. Business and energy experts as well as NGO representatives discussed how Bulgaria – one of the poorest EU member states – can move towards climate neutrality and at the same time ensure affordable energy and heating sources to its entire population.

The conference was opened by Mr Cvetan Kyulanov, Head of the European Commission Representation in Sofia. He pointed out that the COVID-19 pandemic and the related economic downturn require paradoxically represents an opportunity to the new generation of Europeans to adopt a new economic growth model. In this regard it was crucial that the post-pandemic recovery plans integrated environmental and economic goals. His colleague Marina Kirova, Policy Officer at the European Commission Sofia Representation provided more details regarding such transformation by discussing two energy-related financial instruments accompanying EU’s European Green Deal agenda. The first one, Renovation Wage for Europe, is a support scheme aimed at doubling the speed of efficiency-enhancing building renovation in Europe, while the Next Generation EU is a recovery instrument for all EU member states providing funds for investments in ‘green, resilient and digital economy’ in the post-pandemic Europe. Ms Kirova highlighted that at least 30 per cent of the Next Generation EU spending needs to be directed towards climate-supporting measures and technologies. All in all, then, there is room for substantial investment in environmentally-friendly technologies, which gives a chance for poorer countries such as Bulgaria to catch up and participate in the continent’s green transition.

The two remaining presentations in the first panel focused on energy poverty-related challenges in Bulgaria and Poland – two ‘new’ EU member states recording serious air quality problems and high rates of energy poverty. Mr Petar Kisyov, Project Manager at thee Energy Agency of Plovdiv, presented data on the extent of the latter problem in Bulgaria. He illustrated the extent of energy poverty in Bulgaria relying on three sets of indicators: 1) the proportion of the Bulgarian citizens declaring that they are unable to keep their house warm; 2) the proportion of the Bulgaria population receiving heating subsidies; and 3) the number of so-called vulnerable consumers, as defined by the EU Electricity Directive. He also suggested several policies that could eliminate, or at least diminish the extent of energy poverty in the Balkan country. In addition to increasing energy efficiency of buildings and heating systems, Mr Kisyov called for ‘energy democracy’ – or the establishment of energy-producing  cooperatives, which would enable consumers to share the costs of building a large PV plant and subsequently distribute the energy produced by it among themselves. Mr Jakub Sokolowski, Economist at the Warsaw-based Institute for Structural Research presented the results of his research on energy poverty hotspots in Poland’s most contaminated mining regions. He accordingly called for social support to vulnerable communities in the form of social housing and public investment in energy-efficient solutions and renovations, which would also boost the economy in the post-pandemic period.

In the second panel, several business, NGO and academic experts shared their views on Bulgaria’s prospects for green transformation and presented their recommendations in this regard. Mr Georgi Stefanov, Senior Climate and Energy Project Officer at WWF Bulgaria and the Coordinator of the NGO platform Climate Coalition BG deplored the government’s reluctance to embrace the greening agenda, and added that there would be no other developmental opportunity as this one for the country. Mr Tzanev, Executive Director of EnEffect Center for Energy Efficiency NGO similarly argued that business actors and several progressive Bulgarian municipalities were ready to move towards the energy neutrality goal and more energy-efficient solutions; it would therefore be a good idea to decentralize the energy transformation process. The idea of decentralization was also supported by Ms Ana Dimitrova, Head of Department of Energy Policy, Environment and Innovation at EVN Bulgaria, one of the country’s biggest electricity producer and distributor. She also called for a deregulation of the sector that would open up possibilities for more ambitious enviro-friendly investments; the introduction of smart meters in urban areas; and the intensification of dialogue between the governments and the stakeholders.

According to the experts, several challenges still lie ahead. Mr Staykov, Senior Economist at the Institute for Market Economics, warned that the transition period, during which old coal-based power plants would be progressively phased out and facilities based on renewable energy sources would still be expensive to operate, needs to be planned and managed very carefully so that to prevent negative reactions to greening on the part of the consumers. Against this background Mr Stefanov remarked that one solution would be to raise citizens’ incomes so that they could cover up for the initial hike in green energy prices; Mr Kisyov, on his part, argued that new technologies soon will become cheaper over time, as it was the case with PV panels. Last, but not least, Mr Tzanev supported the introduction of an educational aspect to currently run energy efficiency programs and building renovation programs, e.g. by making them conditional on a training on sustainability and green policies. He also called for direct grants to households covering up to 100 per cent of green investment and better coordination between different departments of national and local administration dealing with energy, social and environmental questions.

During the Q&A session the audience asked inter alia whether green transformation and energy poverty dilemmas should be tackled simultaneously or one after the other. The majority of experts were in favour of the simultaneous approach. On a question regarding possible pro-climate actions that students can undertake, the experts advised young people to inquire about and understand the environmental implications of our actions; be active in civic associations and support the activities of organizations that advocate environmentally-friendly solutions; and… vote green.