LOBBYING LANDSCAPE IN BULGARIA

Lobbying in Bulgaria remains largely unregulated and much of it happens behind closed doors and beyond public scrutiny. As a result, there is no commonly shared understanding among the expert community and the public as to what lobbying is and what its legitimate and acceptable forms are. “Lobbying” has thus become a term used to explain any practice or phenomenon that remains non-transparent, non-public, “behind the scenes” in the political-institutional process in Bulgaria.

For the past fifteen years the debate around the need to regulate lobbying in Bulgaria has recurrently emerged on the political and public agenda. Four draft legislative proposals have been elaborated during the 2000s and none of them has received the necessary political support to be transformed into legislation.

The current legislation in place in Bulgaria does not regulate lobbying. There is no public register of lobbying activities, and the public does not have knowledge of who is lobbying whom, on what issues, when and how public authorities are being lobbied. Moreover, information on how much money is being spent in the process as well as the results of lobbying efforts is not published or made publicly available. There are no requirements for public officials to report on meetings with lobbyists, nor are there any requirements for proactive publication of public officials’ and ministers’ calendars. The concept of a legislative footprint, which details the time, person and subject of a legislator’s contact with a stakeholder, has not been adopted.

A robust ethical framework for lobbyists (including companies) and lobbying targets is not yet in place in Bulgaria. The full potential of self-regulation is far from being utilised to foster integrity in lobbying. The onus for integrity is insufficient both with regards to public officials and representatives, as well as those who lobby them.

While formal opportunities for participation exist, there is still much to be done to make access to decision-making and policy-making processes more equal. The broader legal environment does not sufficiently support ethical lobbying. Considerable flaws exist in a number of laws and regulations, which are related to lobbying practices. This includes access to information, political financing and conflicts of interest laws.

Media and civil society organisations are a vital part of any democratic political framework. They can serve as watchdogs, monitoring and promoting transparency in politics. On top of this, they can promote integrity in interest representation, acting as mediators as well as influencers over the political process. The Bulgarian media is susceptible to increasing risks of undue influence on editorial policies. This has resulted from the growing political and economic dependencies of the sector. Such editorial policies may compromise the independence of the sector, meaning that some important public topics remain a taboo and are rarely covered in media.

Civil society is vibrant. There are a growing number of non-governmental organisations, many of which concentrate on the issues of anti-corruption, good governance and institutional monitoring. At the same time, however, many civil society organisations are increasingly becoming the target for political and state influence. This is especially alarming considering the risk of politically and governmentally controlled CSOs serving as a “curtain” for private interests. These CSOs operate in the framework of various consultative councils, formed by different institutions and thus distort equality of access to the political decision-making process.

Possible Remedies  

1. Public authorities both the parliament and the government must introduce adequate (including legal) instruments that support transparent and ethical lobbying. In particular, they should utilise the legislative footprint tool. This would provide detailed information on who sought to influence legislation, what piece of legislation was targeted and by which channels influence was sought.
2. The National Assembly must introduce a Public Registry of all organisations that submit written opinions on draft bills to the parliamentary committees. The register should include information on the name and headquarters of the organisation. Members of the management board, fields of expertise and type of represented interests should also be provided.
3. The parliament should adopt a parliamentary Ethics Code and develop all mechanisms of the ethical infrastructure as a step towards restoring public trust in the democratic functioning of the legislature.
4. Public authorities have to guarantee that conflict of interest prevention is an effective tool for compliance with the requirements regarding the “revolving door” of appointments between the public and private sector.
5. The government must optimize the access to information regime to ensure a more robust framework for active publication of information by institutions and the removal of existing obstacles to electronic access to public information.
6. The National Assembly and the government must guarantee reasonable timeframes for public consultation (at least 30 days) and to organize the consultative process in a manner that is friendly and accessible to the general public. They must provide opportunities for meaningful public participation by: publishing an annual legislative programme of the National Assembly; publishing preliminary concepts on the need and effect of any draft legislation; publishing the transcripts of the public consultations.
7. Business and professional associations must make better use of self-regulation mechanisms. They must promote the standards of integrity in their interaction with public authorities. They also need to make explicit reference to integrity standards in their Ethics Codes. Where such codes are not yet in place, they should be adopted without delay.