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.

The agenda of the meeting can be viewed under the following link:

Bulgaria and the new EU framework on Roma integration_programme

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.

Pdf presentations delivered during the first panel are attached below:

EU green growth agenda_Marina Kirova_EC Sofia

Energy poverty in Bulgaria_Petar Kisyov_Energy Agency of Plovdiv

Energy povery in Poland_Jakub Sokolowski_Institute for Structural Research Warsaw

Turn green and/or stay warm?  Addressing climate neutrality and energy poverty in Bulgaria

5 November 2020, 13:00-15:45 EET (Sofia time)

Zoom link: https://aubg-edu.zoom.us/j/89985207938

In December 2019 the European Commission announced the European Green Deal – a plan to transform Europe into the climate-neutral continent by 2050. The Deal is an ambitious package of measures that should enable European citizens and businesses to benefit from energy transition. The progressive greening of European economies is also at the heart of Next Generation EU – a resilient and inclusive growth agenda put forward by the Commission in response to the COVID 19- related economic downturn.

Already before the coronavirus outbreak, many Bulgarians struggled to cover their energy bills and could not adequately heat their homes – a condition known as energy poverty. It is therefore particularly important in the Bulgarian context to combine the ambitious climate and development goals with the need to ensure access to affordable energy for the population. How can these goals be reconciled? What EU and national-level actions should be taken to achieve them?

These questions will be addressed during a debate that we planned to stage this spring, but we needed to postpone it in view of the COVID-19 risks and ultimately stage in an online form, via Zoom. Individual presentations and a roundtable discussion, as well as a Q&A session with the audience will highlight the interconnections between the environmental and social aspects of energy transition. Different stakeholders will present their standpoints and, with active involvement of the audience, will jointly discuss possible policy solutions.

The conference is financially supported by the Erasmus + Programme of the European Union.

Within the framework of the Social Policy and Politics course, we discussed the European Semester process and analysed the report issued for Bulgaria, the EU Member State in which our university is located. Now we could confront the contents of the report with EU’s reform suggestions issued for 2020: in late May 2020, the Council of the EU issued Country-Specific Recommendations (CSRs) for individual EU Member States.

This year’s CSRs for Bulgaria in the social sphere could traced back to the earlier Commission’s report, which highlighted high rates of economic inequality in the country; significant regional disparities; low levels of digital skills; inadequate or missing links between education institutions and business environment; and ineffective public administration. At the same time, one can identify numerous references the recent COVID-19 pandemic and its socioeconomic impacts. In this regard, the Explanatory Referendum preceding the recommendation states that the outbreak of the coronavirus and the extraordinary measures undertaken to limit the spread of the disease has had a negative effect on the Bulgarian economy, which could further exacerbate the existing regional and societal imbalances.

As a consequence, this year’s reform recommendations for Bulgaria address earlier deficiencies through the prism of the current COVID-19 situation. The Council recommends that thee counutry implements all measures that deem necessary to overcome the pandemic and bring the country’s economy back on the growth track. Specifically, it should boost accessibility and resilience of its healthcare system; ensure equal access of all social groups to education and enhance the population’s digital skills. In the context of the post-pandemic recovery, the country should also offer continued support for business, especially for SMEs, and lower their administrative burden by implementing effective public administration reforms.

A new theme  developed this year’s CSRs is the issue of green transition. For Bulgaria, public and private investments in these two spheres are essential to ensure the country’s post-pandemic economic recovery, but also to achieve its long-term goal of the decarbonization of the economy, as set by the European Green Deal.

It remains to be seen whether the country will pursue reforms in the directions indicated by the Council. However, it seems that in view of the COVID-19 crisis and the increasingly evident challenge posed by the climate change, EU Member States may be required to take more decisive actions and outline an ambitious reform agendas than those implemented in the past.

Our Module ‘Social Policy and Politics in the EU’ foresees an annual Debate on a social policy aspect featuring in a given year’s European Semester report on Bulgaria.

This year’s Debate plans to address challenge of reconciling the ambitious goals of climate neutrality and green transition, enshrined in the European Green Deal, with  the need to ensure access to affordable energy for the Bulgarian population. It will bring together representatives of the European Commission Representation in Sofia; Bulgarian and Polish experts on energy poverty, Bulgarian civil society representatives, as well as students from AUBG and Sofia University.

The event was initially to take place in late March 2020. However, in view of the COVID-19 pandemic and the related health and security measures, it will be postponed to autumn 2020.

I will post regular updates on the Debate’s organization. Let us hope that the global and European anti-COVID 19 situation will soon improve! For the time being, the health of our speakers and conference participants  is of utmost importance.