Q: Has Milieukontakt definitely decided to discontinue its programme in Bulgaria?

A: In the autumn of last year we considered a few ideas of different NGOs as to what programme would be useful and relevant to Bulgaria, then these ideas were combined to form a project and we applied for sponsorship in the Netherlands. The project has been assessed by the sponsor and rejected due to several reasons. This means our idea to continue with our activities in Bulgaria is not going to be put into practice.

Q: Is Milieukontakt totally breaking off its connections with Bulgaria?

A: No, the proposal is going to be reconsidered, the strengths and weaknesses of the project identified and opportunities for submitting another proposal to the same sponsor or for finding another sponsor for the whole project or part of it investigated. These options are still forthcoming. I invited experts at the meeting to share their opinions and remarks which I think will be instrumental in elaborating and expanding certain components of our proposal.

Q: What were the main reasons for the project to be rejected?

A: The sponsor said that the number of projects submitted was greater than expected and many of them were good-quality ones. Milieukontakt submitted two projects for Bulgaria and the Ukraine. The response we got was that much had already been achieved in Bulgaria and since there were a lot of good proposals priorities had to be identified. This is how the Ukraine project ranked higher in terms of the priorities established.

Q: Why so? Because Ukraine is better or worse off compared with Bulgaria?

A: Ukraine is less developed. If we compare Bulgaria with the rest of the CEEC such as Poland, Hungary and the Czeck Republic such meetings are a tradition with them and are organised annually. With them, for example, there are meetings always organised for the purpose of electing representatives in other institutions such as funds, etc. The most important thing is that these representatives report on a regular basis and have certain responsibilities in the respective bodies. Such meetings should be used by NGOs to make decisions as to how to represent their joint opinion before the official institutions. Obviously in Bulgaria this is still an objective for the future. Elections of this kind consist of two phases:
1. Electing a representative who can best substantiate and implement the tasks the majority expects him to carry out.
2. Feedback - the representative reports to the organisations that elected him on past activities and develops a plan covering the next quarter. This means that representatives are overseen by the majority and this overseeing process is a fact throughout their term.

Q: What do you think has changed as regards Bulgarian NGOs since your last visit?

A: My first time in Bulgaria was back in May 1997 and now it's already April of 1999. This is my eleventh visit to Bulgaria.

Q: And I hope it's not going to be the last one.

A: I hope so too. I think I'll still be visiting Bulgaria even if there is an end to this programme. However, nothing is certain as yet. When I first came here I knew nothing about Bulgaria and its NGOs. I had been told that there are quite a few organisations and that they would not work together because they do not see any value in collaboration; however, when I got familiar with these organisations I saw that this was not the case. These processes had started even before the advent of our programme and I think we encouraged and supported several very good projects based on cooperation between NGOs. To give you an example, these annual meetings are organised by coalitions of organisations or by BLUELINK whose executive body consists of eight organisations.

Q: What are Milieukontakt's major achievements in Bulgaria?

A: I mentioned BLUELINK; I'm proud that there is an information exchange network based on cooperation between organisations. Milieukontakt has had a positive influence on this initiative. It has not been us who delivered the project but we assisted its implementation and I think this is an important achievement having in mind that several similar initiatives have flopped. On the other hand, we provided assistance for establishing relations between Bulgarian NGOs and foreign networks, CVS-BG being the output. The newsletter whose board of editors consists of 5 organisations too is another success. When I enter NGO offices and see it sitting on desks I feel we've contributed to it.

Q: Anything that you'd like to change?

A: Sometimes I have the feeling that I do not have the time to follow closely what 's happening. I try to be involved in all decision-making but sometimes I feel I could take a more active part in it all.

Q: If Milieukontakt does not discontinue its activity in Bulgaria are you still going to be their representative?

A: I could not possibly say, because Milieukontakt is in a period of transition. We are trying to identify the best way to work in CEEC. For the time being each of us works within one single country. This might change in the future and each of us might start working on a certain subject in different countries.

Q: What sort of problems do you see in Bulgaria?

A: It's not easy to grasp all the problems if you come all the way from the Netherlands. But certainly a problem arises from the very way people behave here. If NGOs run into a problem they need to voice it; problems should be discussed constructively and not only complained about. One needs to talk about one's problems and try to solve them. Sometimes I tend to think NGOs find it difficult to identify alternatives. They say: "We don't like the way things are now and we don't want to get involved." But this is not a solution. And I don't think I can help in such cases either. If you do not like a certain structure or project try to change it rather than throw up your hands.