WHERE DO THE RESULTS OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS GO AFTER THE FUNDING ENDS?

An Investigative Report on the Fate of State- and Internationally-Funded Development Projects in Tunisia's Interior Regions

By Barhoumi Mohamed Chaeib
Journalist & Researcher – Tunisia
ATEP MED – Arabic Digital Center for Media and Development

Introduction: The Question After the Project Ends

A development project usually has a clear beginning.

There is a funding agreement, a budget, an implementation period, a set of objectives and, eventually, an official completion date.

But what happens the day after the project ends?

Does the infrastructure continue to function?

Do the jobs created by the project survive?

Do local enterprises continue to operate?

Do farmers continue using the equipment and services provided?

Does the institution responsible for the project continue maintaining what was created?

And, most importantly, does the population continue to benefit from the investment several years later?

These questions are particularly important in Tunisia's interior regions, where development projects financed by the state and international partners are often presented as instruments for reducing regional disparities and strengthening local economies.

The question of sustainability therefore deserves to become an investigation in its own right.

Billions in Development, but What Remains?

Tunisia has a substantial portfolio of development projects supported by international financial institutions.

The World Bank's Tunisia portfolio alone included 169 projects with total commitments of approximately US$13.9 billion as of August 2026. Recent projects include programmes covering water security, irrigation, rural livelihoods and social development.

The African Development Bank's Tunisia portfolio lists 195 projects and more than UA 7.5 billion in commitments. Its project database also provides information on project status, financing and expected results.

These figures demonstrate the scale of development financing.

But financial volume is only one part of the story.

The more difficult question is what happens after implementation.

A project can be officially completed while its long-term impact remains uncertain.

Completion is not necessarily the same thing as sustainability.

Following a Project Beyond Its Official End Date

This investigation proposes a simple principle:

Do not stop following a development project when the donor stops financing it.

Instead, follow it for another two, three or five years whenever the available documentation allows.

Take a regional infrastructure project.

The official documentation may provide the original budget, implementation period, development objectives and expected beneficiaries.

But after completion, another set of questions becomes necessary.

Is the infrastructure still operational?

Who maintains it?

How much does maintenance cost?

Has the responsible institution allocated a budget for maintenance?

Are the original beneficiaries still using it?

Has the local economy changed as expected?

Have new businesses emerged?

Have employment opportunities been created?

If the project included training, are the people trained still using their skills?

These are the questions that can reveal whether development financing produced a lasting result or merely a temporary intervention.

The Difference Between Outputs and Impact

Development projects often measure outputs.

A road was constructed.

A water network was installed.

A number of farmers received training.

A number of enterprises received support.

A number of young people participated in a programme.

These are measurable achievements.

But they do not necessarily answer the larger question of impact.

A training programme may train hundreds of people, but how many subsequently find employment?

A local agricultural programme may introduce new products, but do farmers continue producing them after external technical assistance ends?

A project may create a processing facility, but does the facility remain operational when project financing disappears?

A public building may be completed, but who pays for maintenance and operation?

The difference between what was delivered and what survived is one of the central questions of this investigation.

Tunisia's Regional Development Challenge

The issue is especially relevant because regional disparities remain a major development challenge in Tunisia.

Recent World Bank documentation continues to identify disparities between lagging interior regions and more developed coastal areas.

The Tunisia Economic Development Corridor Project, for example, was designed to address regional economic disparities around the Kasserine–Sidi Bouzid–Sfax corridor by improving road transport access and access to finance for small and medium-sized enterprises.

The project included US$168.05 million for corridor infrastructure development and US$47 million for corridor economic development. Yet the World Bank's October 2025 implementation report rated progress toward the development objective and overall implementation progress as moderately unsatisfactory at that stage.

This does not prove that the project failed.

It does, however, provide a legitimate starting point for journalistic investigation.

What happened afterward?

What obstacles affected implementation?

Which components progressed?

Which communities benefited?

What remains unfinished?

And what will remain five years after the financing period?

International Funding Does Not End With the Last Payment

Another important issue is the relationship between donor financing and local responsibility.

International development partners may finance infrastructure, technical assistance, training or institutional reform.

But once the project ends, national or regional institutions may become responsible for operation and maintenance.

This transition can determine whether a project produces durable benefits.

A newly constructed facility requires maintenance.

A water system requires management.

Agricultural equipment requires technical support and replacement parts.

Digital systems require updates.

Training programmes require institutions capable of continuing the work.

Without a sustainable institutional structure, a successful project at the moment of completion can gradually lose its effectiveness.

This is why the investigation should examine not only the original funding but also the post-project budget.

Where Does the Money Go After the Project?

Tunisia's Ministry of Finance provides a public dashboard for development-related expenditure.

The platform allows users to examine development expenditure by mission, programme, sub-programme and project grouping, and provides downloadable data in formats including XLSX, CSV and JSON.

This creates an important journalistic opportunity.

Instead of simply asking how much money was allocated to a development programme, journalists can attempt to follow the financial trail.

How much was allocated?

How much was actually spent?

When was it spent?

Was the project completed?

Were additional appropriations made?

Was the project transferred to another institution?

What expenditure followed after completion?

Was maintenance financed?

This is where data journalism and field reporting can work together.

The International Donor's Perspective

International organizations also conduct evaluations of their programmes.

The United Nations Development Programme's independent country programme evaluation of Tunisia for 2021–2025, published in February 2026, specifically examined UNDP's engagement and identified opportunities to strengthen sustainability, integration and learning across interventions.

Such evaluations provide journalists with an important source of information.

They can identify what worked, what did not work as expected, what lessons were learned and where implementation challenges occurred.

But an evaluation is not the end of the story.

It can become the beginning of a local investigation.

If an evaluation identifies a challenge, what does that challenge look like in a Tunisian village or town?

If a programme reports positive results, do beneficiaries still confirm those results several years later?

If a project is declared sustainable, what evidence demonstrates that sustainability?

A Project Can Be Successful — and Still Need Investigation

Investigative journalism should not assume failure.

This is particularly important when dealing with development projects.

A journalist should not begin with the conclusion that donor-funded projects waste money.

Some projects clearly produce substantial results.

For example, UNIDO reported in May 2026 that the second phase of its PAMPAT programme supported more than 250 enterprises and 1,000 farmers in Kairouan, Nabeul and Testour, contributing to 566 new products and more than 3,600 jobs.

These are significant reported results.

But even positive results create further journalistic questions.

How many of those jobs remain after the programme ends?

How many enterprises continue to operate?

What happens to the farmers after technical support is withdrawn?

Are the products still being marketed?

Has the local value chain become self-sustaining?

The purpose of investigation is therefore not to attack development programmes.

It is to determine what remains after the external intervention ends.

The Field Test

The most important part of this investigation should eventually take place outside Tunis.

The research team can select a number of completed or recently completed projects in interior regions.

For each project, the investigation can create a simple post-project profile:

Project name

Location

Funding source

Original budget

Implementation period

Original objectives

Number of intended beneficiaries

Official results

Current status

Current operator

Maintenance arrangements

Current beneficiaries

Evidence from the field

Documents obtained

Unanswered questions

This methodology makes the investigation concrete.

Instead of discussing development in abstract terms, it follows individual projects.

The Voices of the Beneficiaries

Official reports provide one side of the story.

The people who live with the project every day provide another.

Farmers can explain whether agricultural support continues to benefit them.

Young entrepreneurs can explain whether business-support programmes created sustainable opportunities.

Residents can explain whether infrastructure improved their daily lives.

Local officials can explain the difficulties of operation and maintenance.

Civil society organizations can provide independent observations.

Contractors and implementing agencies can explain technical and administrative challenges.

International partners can be asked to respond to findings.

A strong investigation brings these perspectives together.

The Question of Visibility

There is another interesting dimension.

Some internationally financed projects are not always publicly recognized as international development projects.

A 2026 analysis by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs noted that European-funded projects in Tunisia can remain relatively invisible to the public, while other foreign-funded initiatives may receive greater public visibility.

This raises another question for journalists:

Does the public know who financed a project?

Does it know how much was invested?

Does it know which institution is responsible?

Does it know what results were promised?

And does it know how to evaluate whether those promises were fulfilled?

Development transparency is not only about money.

It is also about information.

From Funding to Long-Term Value

The central argument of this investigation is simple:

A development project should not be judged only by the amount of money invested or the number of activities completed.

Its long-term value matters.

A project that creates a functioning institution, sustainable employment, productive infrastructure or a continuing local economic activity can generate benefits long after the original financing ends.

But a project that depends permanently on external financing may face difficulties once the donor withdraws.

The distinction is crucial.

Conclusion: The Second Life of Development Projects

Every development project has an official life.

There is a launch date.

There is a funding agreement.

There are activities.

There are reports.

There is a closing ceremony.

Then comes the most important period for citizens:

What happens next?

The real test of development is not always visible on the day a project is inaugurated.

It can be seen years later.

Does the infrastructure still work?

Does the enterprise still exist?

Are people still employed?

Are farmers still benefiting?

Is the service still available?

Who pays for maintenance?

Who monitors the results?

And can the public still access information about the project?

These questions deserve systematic investigation in Tunisia's interior regions.

The objective is not to prejudge the success or failure of any project.

It is to compare promises with results, budgets with expenditure, official reports with field reality, and short-term achievements with long-term sustainability.

For journalism, this means following the money beyond the funding period.

For citizens, it means asking what remains after the cameras leave.

And for development policy, it means recognizing that the true measure of an investment may begin after the project officially ends.

By Barhoumi Mohamed Chaeib
Journalist & Researcher – Tunisia
ATEP MED – Arabic Digital Center for Media and Development