BFUG Board have accepted a Note on situation in Belarus
We'll cite the Final Considerations:
At the beginning of September 2020, and thus what would have been well past the date for the ‘Rome’ Ministerial Conference if the pandemic had not forced postponement, it is appropriate to formulate an overall evaluation of progress with regard to Belarus and its achievement since 2015.
A careful comparison of the Roadmap, the implementation reports for 2018 and 2019, and the action plans for 2018, 2019 and 2020, indicate that the process of implementation has been significantly slower than planned and agreed, but that progress has been and is being made.
The impression, noted in the 2018 Report, persists that the deep connection between the various facets of the EHEA commitments has not been fully understood. From the Action Plans and reports on implementation it seems at times that each ‘piece’ of Bologna is pursued separately making it difficult to ensure overall progress. This may be an effect of the method of reporting and should be explored.
In any case there appearsto have been a degree of misunderstanding by Belarus of what was being requested by the Board, and possibly by the Board with respect to the intentions of those reporting. The former may have contributed to an only partly justified impression of lack of transparency in the reports presented; the latter to appearing to assume a ‘naming and shaming’ attitude. A natural desire to ‘gild the lily’ may have led Belarus to present as successes events and seminars related to the roadmap targets while the Board expected to see rapid proof of legal and normative change and concrete implementation in the reality of higher education.
Further complicating matters have been the reports produced by certain Belarusian student organizations and relayed to the Board through the European Students Union (ESU). Various denunciations of limits to students’ freedom to self-organize, to travel freely and generally to making their views known without fear of reprisal have been voiced. Those responsible for the implementation process have denied that these reports are fact-based, and have insisted on the value of their work to ensure increasing transparency and greater student involvement.
Reasons for satisfaction and greater optimism are not lacking. In particular we note that work has progressed in many directions. It seems important that the draft documents relating to the key commitments (of which approval and implementation seemed imminent, at least until the most recent weeks) are publicly available on the www.edustandart.by/ website for comment and discussion, and they have received a large number of ‘hits’.
In particular, the case of Belarus seems to confirm strongly the validity of the peer support method. I have been able to observe personally the importance of direct interaction between the Belarusian delegates and delegates from other EHEA countries, both those that are well ahead of Belarus in implementation and those that are still facing challenges during the TPG meetings. The realization that many of the issues faced are not unique to Belarus and that it is not simple to transform a higher education system – for any country – has been liberating, and has fostered more incisive action.
Participation in the TPGs, and the structured support offered (and the discipline imposed) by the World Bank, are positive factors that suggest that, if the political situation in the country allows it, further progress towards full implementation will be made.