Eurofunds: news are getting gloomier

According to the Director of the European Institute, the situation with the money coming to Bulgaria from EU funds is beginning to resemble the current oil market situation - the news are becoming more and more negative.

"With the risk to repeat clichés that everybody is tired of, I would say that the solution to "the oil market situation" is in our hands and it is as simple as that - we are speaking of adherence to the rules. But observing them at all costs and without any exceptions even such dictated by the noblest intentions", Nikolova adds.

As an example thereof, Juliana Nikolova refers to the news that the German Company for Technical Cooperation (GTZ), which provides support to Bulgaria since 1992, will send two of its employees to serve as advisers to the Bulgarian government. One of them will advise Meglena Plugchieva, Deputy Prime Minister in charge of Eurofunds, and the other will assist the Republican Road Infrastructure Fund after its reorganization into an agency with the Council of Ministers.

According to the Director of the European Institute, the news provokes a couple of questions regarding existing rules: who is paying for their services? Because everybody knows that consultancy fees are high. In case the payment comes from the state budget, wasn't it necessary to have due procedure for appointment of such advisers? If GTZ is paying itself, then aren't we speaking of conflict of interests in view of the fact that the company has participated in the absorption of a great deal of euromoney under pre-accession instruments, and it is expected to apply for financing under structural and agricultural funds as well? If the German government is paying directly, then why them? Wasn't it necessary to seek the assistance of all 26 Member States, for example, and then select the best offer?

In her commentary Juliana Nikolova recommends that the State Agency Agriculture, acting as SAPARD Agency, should do three things. First, it should notify all correct beneficiaries for the suspension of funds. Second, require report for all expenses actually incurred before the date of suspension. And third, reimburse beneficiaries for their expenses. Thus, there will be minimization of the losses incurred by those payers who were accurate and acting in good faith - in view of the fact that SAPARD Programme officially ends on 30 November and beneficiaries do not rely, as much as the state does, on its extension. It is another question that other conscientious taxpayers will eventually pay for these expenses through the state budget and moreover, the results achieved will be a lot lower than in the case of full funding.