Erasm Program, how to protect projects, how to work. Is everything related to the program in our country so “pink“, or have we somehow Bulgarianized it… Dr. Maria Mateeva-Kazakova - director of the Institute for Research, Analyzes and Strategies spoke to FAKTI.
- Ms. Kazakova, you are conducting an extramural saga with the Ministry of Education and Science regarding problems you face when applying for the “Erasmus” in Bulgaria? What is wrong with us?
- This is a problem that must be approached very seriously by the media, as well as by the judicial authorities. The Center for Human Resources Development (HRDC) has previously been subject to unflattering revelations about how instead of Europeanizing the national administration, clientelism and corruption eat away at European principles in our country, and this happens mainly when it comes to the distribution of funds. My specific experience over two consecutive years has led to conclusions about the existence of multiple violations that are still valid today. The problems identified were supported by both the European Commission and the national ombudsman. Twice, the ombudsman recommended that the Ministry of Education and Culture conduct an audit of how the CDR works. For now, however, there is no reaction from their side.
For example, even last year, some major violations stood out, serious ones at that – favoring Bulgarian banks and violating the principles of the free market within the EU. After an investigation initiated by us, the EC ordered them to stop this vicious practice, I hope it has been taken into account. In addition, a lack of preparation on the part of the evaluators, as well as a real control over their independence, became clear. This year, our interaction with the CDR led to even more alarming findings. These conclusions were again supported by the European Commission. It is about pressure, probably because of the attempt to seek transparency. It is manifested both through the nervous, callous tone of official reports and through direct violation of the evaluation rules. One of the most striking examples is the reference to elements of a project submitted last year within the evaluation of a new project proposal. This means, in short, that in the CDRC, the financing of the financed projects happens quietly, in the dark and in a Bulgarian manner. Amazing “leaks“ of information regarding evaluations of self-submitted projects are childishly explained. In official documents, arguments such as that one randomly selected evaluator was not familiar with the project, but the other happened to be evaluating it last year as well. They then met, without mentioning under what conditions, and found that they mutually did not know each other…. Therefore, the procedure, if it could be considered such, should be considered transparent.
- How many other programs related to the education of Ukrainians are there in our country?
- This is one of the main problems, on the basis of which the red light came on for the lack of preparation on the part of the experts who work on the assessments. Despite the repeated detailed explanation that it is proposed to develop a program and plan for training Ukrainian refugees in Bulgarian and Romanian with the aim of integration in the labor market, because such do not exist, in every single answer of the experts we find the statement that accessible, even on the internet are numerous courses. For a professional in the field, it is clear that a course and a course following a professionally developed curriculum and study plan are fundamentally different things. We have witnessed the proposed project site being replaced, then a valuation based on this fictitious, non-existent development site. Despite the repeated questions asked about the training of the evaluators, we received an answer that they have a serious academic training. In each of the cases, however, it was about declarations that they have the necessary training, but without giving examples of what it is in terms of educational level and discipline.
- The Human Resources Development Center manages the "Erasmus" program. Is it difficult to go all the way from application to funding?
- The problem has two sides. On the one hand, like any project that must be developed according to EU standards, it has its own specifics in terms of volume, argumentation and content. The serious question comes in the assessment and selection activities that are carried out at the national level. It can be seen that a number of principles, which are the norm at the European level, have been Bulgarianized to the point of vitiating the process. Methods of appeal are blurred, time has stood still in terms of speed and efficiency of communication. At a time when digitization and sustainable development are top priorities for the EU, what does it mean to exchange documents by registered mail? Only upon explicit request and after a long wait without a specific response time could a scanned copy of a physical document be obtained.
- You claim that there is a lack of transparency about appeals procedures. What's wrong…
- Detailed information on how the appeal process is carried out is missing. After our reports to the European Commission and the inspection they imposed on them based on the reports, a button for submitting reports appeared on the CDHR website. However, it simply replaces the mailing address. Complaints and their responses then arrive in the same scanned form, passing through the same stages of processing inside the institution itself.
-Is it true that communication with beneficiaries takes place entirely on paper…
- Yes, it is paradoxical, but it is true. This is not just a technical problem. It is basically an example of the backlog of procedures through methods that set the country back. The official again appropriates the role of allocator of a resource by exceeding his authority.
- You also have correspondence with the European Commission. What recommendations do they give us…
- The European Commission, unlike the MES, very quickly understood and identified the issues identified by us as problematic. Already last year, based on our complaint, it confirmed that it is not permissible for an institution distributing funds from the EU to violate the principles of the free market by favoring Bulgarian banks. Due to a repeated complaint due to the increased pressure on us for trying to shed light on the processes in the institution, this year the EC also categorically confirmed that it is inadmissible to evaluate a project based on elements of a project proposal from a previous call for applications. The EC is also committed to follow the methods of selection of evaluators in Bulgaria under the "Erasmus" program. In this regard, in the name of transparency and with the aim of fighting to save the efficiency of Bulgarian institutions from the tentacles of corruption and clientelism, we asked that our project be taken as a model and analyzed under a magnifying glass within the framework of the monitoring of the CDR by the EC.< /p>