EurActiv Logo
EU news & policy debates
- across languages -
Click here for EU news »
EurActiv.com Network

BROWSE ALL SECTIONS

Audit questions sustainability of EU water projects in Africa

Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Published 02 October 2012, updated 13 December 2012

Many EU-backed sanitation and water projects in sub-Saharan Africa are unsustainable because of missing technical and financial support, says a new financial audit of more than 20 development projects.

A report by the European Court of Auditors says investments worth millions of euros in six African countries are at risk because many of the projects lack the maintenance and revenues to sustain future operations.

“For a majority of projects, resulting benefits will not continue to flow in the medium and long term unless non-tariff revenue is insured or because of institutional weaknesses,” David Bostock, a member of the court, told journalists at the release of the audit on 28 September.

The auditors reviewed 23 projects in Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Nigeria and Tanzania. They found that fewer than half the water and sanitation projects were meeting the needs of beneficiaries.

Those nations account for some €320 million of the €1 billion spent by the European Commission from 2001 to 2010 to improve water and sanitation in the Sub-Saharan Africa.

The EU is collectively the largest aid donor, providing €54 billion, or 56% of the total in 2010, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Nearly one-third of the €5.9 billion spent for drinking water and latrines comes from the EU, with Sub-Saharan Africa receiving 28% followed by South Asia with 19%.

Amongst the findings of the Luxembourg-based court:

  • Four of 23 projects reviewed by the auditors generated enough revenue from tariffs to cover operations;
  • Three were funded with government aid or other resouces;
  • For the remaining 16 projects, there were “no formal commitments” to support infrastructure beyond installation.
  • Boreholes paid for by the EU were no longer functioning or in poor working condition;
  • Water pumping stations in some cases built without sufficient electricity to run the pumps.

Critics seized on the audit to call for better management of EU funds.

"This stinging rebuke must act as a wake-up call for the Commission,” said British Conservative MEP Nirj Deva, vice chairman of the European Parliament's International Development Committee.

"EU aid is vital to the developing world and to the global community as a whole, but this kind of sloppiness gives it a bad name," Deva said in a statement. "The people we employ to deliver and supervise these aid programmes on the ground need to pull their socks up."

Andris Piebalgs, the European commissioner for overseas development, acknowledged that there “is no room for complacency and there is always a need for improvement.”

But Piebalgs added that many of the projects reviewed by the auditors began before the EU imposed stricter monitoring guidelines to ensuring long-term viability of development aid. Piebalgs last year unveiled a plan to revamp EU aid - the so-called Agenda for Change - to focus more spending on the least developed countries and on water and energy needs.

EurActiv.com

COMMENTS

  • Scenario creators would say that one should do the right things in a given situation at the right time and place and this should be the underlying formula for the achievements of any strategic plan. What EU water projects' implementers have was good enough just for that moment. Now we expect that they have also set in place contingency plans (preventive measures) to counteract potential failure/risks in the right future time.

    My questions for the EU water implementers are: Did you plan any visionary view into the future? What was your plan B in case of water infrastructure failure in Sub-Saharan Africa?

    By :
    Global Water Institute -V. Ndaruzaniye
    - Posted on :
    02/10/2012
  • Reviewed Commentary:

    Scenario creators would say that one should do the right things in a given situation at the right time and place and this should be the underlying formula for the achievements of any strategic plan. What EU water projects' implementers have done was good enough just for that moment. Now we expect also to see what they have set in place as contingency plans (preventive measures) to counteract potential failure/risks in the right future time. Apparently they are out of solutions.

    That is funny to see eu water projects' implementers complaining about the whole outcome issue. Who should be blamed? Implementers or beneficiaries? Obviously, beneficiaries have the right to bring to justice those who tended carrots to them but failed to keep it up. Now it becomes difficult for beneficiaries to adapt to the new situation and become resilient. In fact, with their new way of life without water, they may not be able to adapt. a person who is not used to walking dozen of kilometers to fetch water might take him/her a year or two to get used to it. If impossible, they migrate to wetter places.

    The are able to migrate to other places for "water supply convenience." Places where they move to, old dwellers may feel tension, and if they do, that will be the beginning of water conflict.
    Who would have sparked a conflict over water? EU water implementers or Beneficiaries? Who can mediate the conflict?
    What are the solutions?
    1. Additional funding is necessary for water infrastructure repair and maintenance.
    2. Ensure your scenario is right with a plan B to guarantee a sustainable water supply in your targeted area for the coming 20 years.
    3. Ensure you know what do 20 years later, successful or not.

    By :
    Global Water Institute -V. Ndaruzaniye
    - Posted on :
    02/10/2012

Advertising

Sponsors

Videos

Sustainable Development News videos

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Sustainable Development Promoted videos

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Advertising

Advertising