From Training to Employment: What Happened to Young People Targeted by Employment Programmes in Tunisia?

                               

From Training to Employment: What Happened to Young People Targeted by Employment Programmes in Tunisia?

A document- and data-based investigative journalism report
Prepared and Published by: Mohamed Chaieb Barhoumi
ATEP MED – Arabic Digital Center for Media & Development
Areas: Youth Unemployment | Employment | Poverty | Rural Development | Vocational Training | Women and Youth | Entrepreneurship | Development Finance | Accountability

INVESTIGATION SUMMARY

Tunisia and its international partners have invested in a number of programmes and projects aimed at addressing youth unemployment, improving employability, linking training to labour-market needs, and supporting young people in rural areas to create businesses or access paid employment.

Among these initiatives is Agriboost, a project designed to strengthen the employability of young people in the rural agricultural sector by training jobseekers to help them obtain paid employment in existing agricultural enterprises or establish their own businesses. Its pilot phase targets 200 young people in Kairouan Governorate.

However, the existence of a training programme does not necessarily mean the creation of jobs, and a funded project does not necessarily produce sustainable income.

This investigation therefore starts with a simple but fundamental question:

What actually happened to the young people after the training?

Did they find jobs? Did they obtain stable incomes? Did they establish businesses? How many businesses survived? And how many young people returned to unemployment after the training or support ended?

This investigation does not assume in advance that the programme succeeded or failed. Instead, it seeks to follow the complete chain:

Funding → Selection of young people → Training → Skills → Employment → Income → Sustainability.

1. A Problem Bigger Than One Project: Youth Unemployment

No employment programme can be understood separately from the wider labour-market situation in Tunisia.

World Bank data indicated that youth unemployment in Tunisia reached approximately 39.2% in the first quarter of 2024, compared with an overall unemployment rate of 16.2%, with women facing a higher unemployment rate.

The World Bank has also highlighted a mismatch between the skills possessed by jobseekers and those required by employers, particularly in the agricultural and agri-food sectors.

This means that the problem is not only the number of jobs available. It also concerns the relationship between:

Education → Training → Skills → Employer Needs → Employment.

Evaluating employment programmes is therefore essential to determine whether money allocated to training and support actually addresses the problem or simply produces statistics about the number of people trained.

2. Agriboost: A Youth Employment Experiment in Kairouan

Agriboost provides a relevant case study for investigation.

The project seeks to improve the employability of young people in the rural agricultural sector by providing training to jobseekers so that they can obtain paid employment in an existing agricultural enterprise or establish their own businesses.

Its pilot phase targets 200 young people in Kairouan Governorate.

This makes Kairouan an important starting point for the investigation because it allows the journalist to move from the broad national debate about unemployment to a defined group of young people, a specific programme and a specific target.

The journalistic question is therefore not:

How many young people were trained?

It is:

How many actually moved from training into employment?

3. Training Is Not Employment

One of the most important issues for this investigation is the distinction between training and employment.

A young person may receive a training course, certificate or professional qualification without obtaining a job.

The investigation should therefore distinguish between:

Number registered in the programme → Number who started training → Number who completed training → Number who obtained employment → Number who retained employment after six months or one year → Number who achieved stable income.

This is the chain that must be followed.

4. From 200 Young People to 200 Outcomes

If the pilot target is 200 young people in Kairouan, the investigative questions become more precise.

How many actually entered the programme?

How many completed the training?

How many obtained employment?

How many established businesses?

How many are still working?

How many stopped?

And how many returned to unemployment?

It is not enough to publish one final figure showing how many people received training.

The real outcome of an employment programme must be measured by what happens after the training.

5. Where Does the Money Go?

Every employment programme financed by public funds or international institutions represents an investment in human capital.

The investigation should therefore ask:

How much funding was provided?

How much was spent on training?

How much was spent on equipment?

How much was spent on consultancy?

How much was spent on administration and monitoring?

And what was the actual cost of each job created?

This last question is particularly important.

A programme that spends one million dinars and creates 100 sustainable jobs has a very different cost-per-job from a programme that spends the same amount and trains thousands of people without producing stable employment.

The investigation will therefore go beyond the size of the funding and attempt to examine:

Training cost → Cost per beneficiary → Cost per job → Cost per sustainable job.

6. Kairouan: Why Agriculture?

The choice of the agricultural sector is particularly relevant in Kairouan and rural areas.

Agriculture and agri-food activities are important sources of income and employment in inland and rural communities. At the same time, the sector faces challenges related to informal employment, productivity, water scarcity and climate change.

Development programmes also identify the need to attract more young people to agriculture and agri-food activities.

This raises an important question:

Can agriculture move from providing seasonal and low-income work to becoming a source of more stable employment for young people?

If so, what happened to the young people targeted by employment programmes?

7. From Jobseeker to Entrepreneur

One of the pathways promoted through Agriboost is support for young people to establish their own businesses.

But creating a business does not automatically mean creating a successful business.

The investigation should therefore follow the full business life cycle:

Business idea → Training → Financing or support → Launch → First income → Continuity → Additional job creation.

The questions are:

How many young people started businesses?

What types of businesses were created?

How much financial support was provided?

Did entrepreneurs actually receive the necessary equipment?

How many businesses are still operating?

How many stopped?

Why did they stop?

Was follow-up provided after the business started?

And did these individual businesses become stable sources of income?

8. The Problem of Informal Employment

Another important dimension must not be overlooked.

Tunisia's labour market has a significant informal component, particularly affecting young people and rural communities.

This means that a young person may find work after training but still work without a formal contract or adequate social protection.

The question should therefore not simply be:

Did the young person find a job?

It should also be:

What kind of job did the young person obtain?

Does the worker have a contract?

Is there social protection?

Is the job permanent or seasonal?

Does the wage provide stable income?

And can the young person build a sustainable economic future from this employment?

9. Young Women: Does the Support Reach Them?

The investigation should include a specific focus on young women.

National and international programmes frequently identify women's economic inclusion as a priority. However, participation in training does not automatically translate into economic independence.

The investigation should therefore examine:

The number of young women participating.

The number completing training.

The number obtaining employment.

The number establishing businesses.

The number of women-led businesses that remain operational.

And most importantly:

Has the programme generated real and sustainable income for women?

10. From Training to Employment: The Missing Link

This question is also relevant to the Nexus Skills & Jobs for Youth initiative within the TRACE programme, which focuses on addressing the gap between youth skills and employer needs in the agricultural and agri-food sectors.

Such initiatives provide an important basis for comparing training with actual employment outcomes.

If programmes perform better when they involve direct partnerships with private companies ready to recruit workers, an important question arises:

Can this model be replicated in Kairouan and other inland regions?

11. Why Do Some Programmes Perform Better Than Others?

This is a central investigative issue.

If the documents show that some training programmes lead to actual employment while others do not, the investigation should identify the reasons.

Is the difference related to:

Choice of training specialisations?

Training quality?

Private-sector partnerships?

Geographical location?

Education level?

Transportation?

Weak investment in inland regions?

Difficulty accessing finance?

Lack of post-training follow-up?

Or simply insufficient demand for labour?

These questions transform the investigation from a presentation of statistics into an analysis of causes.

12. Kairouan as a Test of Public Policy

Kairouan can be more than simply the geographical location of the investigation.

If a small employment programme succeeds in creating sustainable jobs for young people in rural communities, it could provide a model for expansion.

If, however, a programme produces more trainees than jobs, this raises questions about the design of employment policy itself.

Kairouan can therefore serve as a test case:

Do employment programmes reach the communities that need them most?

13. The Real Indicator: What Happens One Year Later?

One of the biggest weaknesses in evaluating employment programmes is the focus on immediate outputs.

The number of trainees is an indicator.

The number of certificates is an indicator.

The number of businesses launched is an indicator.

But the most important question is:

What happened six months later?

Then:

What happened one year later?

And:

What happened after the funding ended?

If a young person works during the project period and then returns to unemployment after the programme ends, the project may have achieved a short-term result without necessarily achieving sustainable economic inclusion.

14. Investigative Monitoring Scorecard

Project: Agriboost

Location: Kairouan Governorate

Target group: Young jobseekers in rural and agricultural communities

Pilot target: 200 young people

Stated pathway: Training → Employment or Business

Question 1: How many young people actually entered the programme?

Question 2: How many completed the training?

Question 3: How many obtained employment?

Question 4: How many established businesses?

Question 5: How many businesses are still operating?

Question 6: How many young people achieved stable income?

Question 7: What was the average cost of each employment opportunity?

Question 8: What proportion of beneficiaries were women?

Question 9: Were the jobs formal or informal?

Question 10: What happened to beneficiaries six months and one year later?

15. What Do the Documents Establish and What Still Requires Verification?

Official sources establish the existence and objectives of the Agriboost project, including training for young jobseekers and pathways towards paid employment or self-employment. The pilot phase identifies 200 young people in Kairouan as its target.

However, these facts alone do not establish the project's final impact.

Additional verification is required concerning the number of young people who actually participated, the number who completed training, the number who obtained employment, the nature of their jobs, wages, contracts and social protection, the number of businesses established, the number that survived, the number that stopped operating, the income generated and the real cost of each sustainable job.

16. Questions the Investigation Must Answer

Who are the 200 targeted young people?

How were they selected?

What are their ages and educational backgrounds?

How many are women?

What type of training did they receive?

What was the cost of training each young person?

Who provided the training?

Was the training actually aligned with labour-market needs?

How many young people obtained employment after training?

Were those jobs formal?

Did workers receive social protection?

How many established businesses?

What level of support did they receive?

How many businesses are still operating?

How many stopped?

Why did they stop?

Did beneficiaries receive follow-up support after launching their businesses?

And what happened after the support ended?

17. Proposed Field Investigation

The next stage of the investigation should move from documents to people.

A sample of current and former beneficiaries could be identified and compared.

Case One: A young person who received training and found employment.

Case Two: A young person who received training and established a business.

Case Three: A young person who received training but did not find employment.

Case Four: A young person who launched a business and later stopped operating.

Comparing these four cases can reveal the difference between:

What the project documents say

and

What actually happened in the lives of beneficiaries.

18. From Numbers to People's Stories

Investigative journalism does not rely on statistics alone.

Behind every number there is a person.

If a programme targets 200 young people, the investigation should seek to understand what happened to some of them after participating.

Did they obtain income?

Were they able to support their families?

Did they leave unemployment?

Did they migrate?

Did they return to seasonal work?

Is the business they created still operating?

These stories, when independently documented and verified, can make the investigation both stronger and more human.

19. From Training to Impact

An employment programme may announce:

200 young people were trained.

But investigative journalism must ask:

What happened next?

If 150 obtained stable jobs with formal contracts, that would represent a strong result.

If 50 established sustainable businesses, that would also be significant.

But if 200 young people received training and most subsequently returned to unemployment, the problem would not necessarily be the number of training courses. The deeper question would be the programme's ability to convert training into genuine economic opportunities.

This is the difference between:

Output – what the programme produces

Outcome – what changes as a direct result

and

Impact – what changes sustainably in people's lives.

CONCLUSION

Youth employment programmes in Tunisia represent an attempt to address one of the country's most complex social and economic challenges: unemployment, particularly among young people in inland and rural communities.

Agriboost provides a valuable case for investigative journalism because its pilot phase targets 200 young people in Kairouan Governorate and establishes a clear pathway from training towards employment or entrepreneurship.

However, the success of an employment programme should not be measured only by the number of training courses delivered or the number of participants.

The real indicators are:

How many young people obtained jobs?

How many achieved stable income?

How many businesses survived?

And how many remained outside the labour market?

This leads to the central question of the investigation:

FROM TRAINING TO EMPLOYMENT: ARE YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMMES IN TUNISIA TURNING DEVELOPMENT FUNDING INTO REAL AND SUSTAINABLE JOBS?

Methodology and Sources

This investigation is based on an analysis of official documents and data concerning youth employment and economic development programmes in Tunisia, with a focus on Agriboost and relevant TRACE initiatives addressing rural employment and the agricultural and agri-food sectors.

The investigation does not assume in advance that any programme has succeeded or failed, and it does not make allegations of corruption or mismanagement without independent evidence.

The methodology compares:

Funding → Objectives → Beneficiaries → Training → Employment → Income → Sustainability → Impact.

Final findings require further verification through implementation documents, beneficiary records, employment data, interviews with young people, employers and implementing institutions, and field reporting wherever possible.

Primary sources: World Bank – Tunisia Economic Resilience & Inclusion / TRACE; Agriboost; Nexus Skills & Jobs for Youth; MPTF for Employment and Youth in Tunisia; relevant official labour-market data and reports.

From Funding to Impact: What Has IESS-Kairouan Actually Delivered in the Fight Against Poverty in Kairouan?

                        

From Funding to Impact: What Has IESS-Kairouan Actually Delivered in the Fight Against Poverty in Kairouan?

A document- and data-based investigative report
Prepared and published by: Mohamed Chaieb Barhoumi
ATEP MED – Arabic Digital Center for Media & Development
Areas: Poverty and Local Development | Employment | Women and Youth | Water | Climate Adaptation | Development Finance | Development Accountability

INVESTIGATION SUMMARY

The Economic, Social and Solidarity Integration Project in Kairouan, known as IESS-Kairouan, is a major development initiative targeting vulnerable rural communities in Kairouan Governorate, Tunisia. According to the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the project has a total cost of approximately US$51.27 million, financed through contributions from IFAD, the Tunisian government, the Adaptation Fund and beneficiaries. The project covers seven delegations and 35 rural sectors, including eight rural sectors in El Alaa. Its original design targeted 16,800 households, approximately 84,000 people, with objectives related to poverty reduction, income generation, support for women and youth, improved access to drinking water, and climate resilience.

However, the latest available supervision documentation in 2026 indicates a gap between elapsed project time and implementation progress, together with delays affecting several activities. The central journalistic question is therefore not simply how much money was allocated, but a more important one:

What has actually been transformed from this funding into measurable and sustainable improvements in people's lives?

1. A US$51.27 Million Development Project

The project's total cost is approximately US$51.27 million. IFAD data indicate approximately US$23.8 million from IFAD, US$9.21 million from the Adaptation Fund, US$15.88 million in cash financing from the Tunisian government, together with beneficiary contributions.

The project's official website also presents the original total cost at approximately TND153.81 million. Differences between dollar and Tunisian-dinar figures should be considered in the context of exchange-rate changes and financing developments during implementation.

But the size of the financing raises a fundamental question:

Have these financial resources been converted into measurable improvements in the lives of the targeted households?

2. Where Does the Project Operate?

The project covers seven delegations: Hajeb El Ayoun, Oueslatia, Ain Jloula, Sbikha, Haffouz, El Alaa and Chebika, covering a total of 35 rural sectors.

El Alaa is particularly relevant to this investigation because it contains eight rural sectors, the largest number among the project's intervention areas.

This provides an opportunity to move from general project objectives to specific local interventions and examine whether financing and decisions have actually translated into services and economic activities benefiting local communities.

3. The Original Target: 16,800 Households

The original project design targeted 16,800 households, approximately 84,000 people.

Priority groups included poor and low-income households, small farmers and livestock breeders, with particular attention to women and youth. The project also established objectives related to improved living conditions, income-generating activities, water access and climate adaptation.

Over time, some targeting and implementation indicators have been revised. This does not automatically mean project failure. However, it raises an important investigative question:

Does the revised targeting represent a realistic adjustment, or does it reflect difficulties in reaching the project's original target population?

4. After 72% of the Project Period: Physical Implementation at Approximately 61%

The official IFAD supervision report issued in August 2026 provides an important indicator.

After approximately 72% of the project period had elapsed, physical implementation stood at around 61%, while financial commitments reached approximately 68%, financial execution around 54%, and IFAD loan disbursement approximately 63%.

These figures do not mean that the project has stopped. They do, however, reveal a gap between elapsed time and implementation progress.

The supervision report also classified the project as a Potential Problem Project, indicating risks or potential difficulties in achieving the expected results.

With the project's completion date having been extended, an important question emerges:

Will the extension generate additional development impact, or will it mainly provide additional time to complete delayed activities?

5. Income-Generating Activities: 427 Out of a Target of 1,820

The project established a target of 1,820 income-generating activities.

However, the 2026 supervision report indicates that approximately 427 activities had been established, representing around 28% of the target.

Women accounted for approximately 42% of beneficiaries of these activities, while young people represented only around 4%.

The report also indicates that approximately 96% of the activities were agricultural in nature, with a strong concentration on sheep fattening and goat breeding.

These figures raise several questions:

Are these activities generating sustainable income? How many are still operating? How many have stopped? Have young people actually benefited? And has the project contributed to diversifying the rural economy, or does it remain heavily concentrated on traditional activities?

6. Another 350 Activities Still in Procurement

The supervision documentation indicates that approximately 350 additional income-generating activities had been identified and were still under procurement procedures.

This means that part of the planned economic support had not yet been converted into operational activities at the time of the report.

The investigation therefore needs to establish when these activities were delivered, who received them, what type of support was provided, its value, and what monitoring mechanisms exist after delivery.

Most importantly:

How many of these activities will still be operating one or two years after receiving support?

7. Women and Youth: Has Priority Become an Economic Result?

Women and youth are among the project's priority groups. Yet the available results show a significant difference between the two groups.

Women represent approximately 42% of beneficiaries of income-generating activities, while youth account for only around 4%.

Therefore, simply identifying women and youth as priority groups is not enough.

The real question is:

Has this priority translated into economic independence and sustainable income opportunities?

For young people in particular, the meaningful indicator is not simply how many received training or support, but how many obtained sustainable income or maintained a viable economic activity.

8. Training: 3,547 Beneficiaries

Approximately 3,547 people benefited from training, including 1,466 women and 687 young people.

However, the integration of the climate dimension into training remained limited. According to the supervision report, only approximately 12% of trained participants benefited from training with a climate-related component.

This is significant because climate adaptation is one of the project's major objectives, while many supported activities depend on agriculture and livestock, sectors particularly vulnerable to drought, water scarcity and climate change.

9. Water: From a General Objective to Local Projects

The project established an objective of improving access to drinking water for approximately 4,300 families.

However, this objective cannot be measured simply by counting projects, tenders or administrative procedures.

The real indicator is:

Are the targeted families actually receiving regular and safe water services?

This is why specific local projects are particularly important for the investigation.

10. Case Study: El Alaa and 51 Rainwater Cisterns

On 17 April 2025, the official IESS project published a tender for the construction of 51 semi-buried rainwater cisterns in El Alaa delegation, with a submission deadline of 19 May 2025.

This document is important because it moves the investigation from general statements about improving water access to a specific local intervention whose implementation can be traced.

However, a tender announcement alone does not prove that all 51 cisterns were completed and placed into service.

The questions therefore remain:

What happened after the tender? Was the contract awarded? How many cisterns were actually constructed? How many entered service? And how many households benefited from them?

These questions require completion and acceptance documents, as well as field verification, before they can be presented as final facts.

11. El Alaa Is Not the Only Local Intervention

The project's official procurement records reveal other interventions, including semi-buried rainwater cisterns in Oueslatia and Ain Jloula, the acquisition of populated queen-bee colonies and equipment linked to honey production, as well as interventions involving solar energy, water and agriculture.

These documents make it possible to establish a clear investigative chain:

Announcement → Tender → Contract → Implementation → Completion → Handover → Use → Impact

This approach transforms procurement records into an investigative tool rather than treating them as purely administrative documents.

12. What Do Procurement Documents Reveal?

For a journalist, a tender announcement is not simply an administrative document. It is the starting point of a chain of questions.

The investigation can follow:

• the publication date;
• the number and nature of facilities;
• the tender deadline;
• the company or contractor awarded the contract;
• the contract value;
• the implementation period;
• the completion date;
• the handover status;
• the current condition of the intervention;
• the number of beneficiaries;
• and the actual impact after operation.

This makes it possible to investigate the full life cycle of a development project, rather than relying solely on official statements about achievements.

13. Water and Infrastructure: Delays and Cost Changes

The 2026 supervision report reveals different levels of progress among infrastructure projects.

At Ksar Lamsa, implementation was approximately 40%, while about 55% of the planned time had been consumed.

At Ben Jeddou, implementation reached approximately 95%, but the time consumed reached around 223% of the original period, with a financial amendment of approximately TND216,000.

At Louata, the estimated cost of the borehole increased to approximately TND1.3 million, compared with approximately TND500,000 at the time of the mid-term review.

These figures do not, by themselves, prove mismanagement or wrongdoing.

They do, however, require explanation:

What caused the delays? Why did costs change? Were price increases or technical changes responsible? Did these changes affect beneficiaries? And, ultimately, did the services reach the intended communities?

14. From Outputs to Impact

A development project can build cisterns, establish economic activities, train thousands of people, construct infrastructure and disburse funds.

But these are outputs.

Impact is different.

Impact means reduced household vulnerability, increased and sustainable income, continued operation of supported businesses, greater economic independence for women, improved opportunities for young people, better access to water, and stronger resilience to drought and climate change.

This is the gap that the investigation seeks to measure:

The distance between what the project produces and what actually changes in people's lives.

15. Investigative Monitoring Scorecard

Target households: Original target: 16,800 households. The latest direct 2026 target indicates 13,881 households.
Investigative question: Why was the targeting revised?

Target population: Original design: 84,000 people. The 2026 direct target indicates 27,762 people.
Investigative question: What explains this adjustment in targeting?

Income-generating activities: Target: 1,820. Established: 427.
Investigative question: Why does implementation remain at approximately 28% of the target?

Women: Approximately 42% of income-generating activity beneficiaries.
Investigative question: Has this participation produced sustainable income?

Youth: Approximately 4%.
Investigative question: Why has youth participation remained limited?

Training: 3,547 beneficiaries.
Investigative question: What happened after the training?

Climate-related training: Approximately 12%.
Investigative question: Is this sufficient to support the project's climate-adaptation objectives?

Physical implementation: Approximately 61% after 72% of the project period.
Investigative question: Does this create a risk for final impact?

Financial execution: Approximately 54%.
Investigative question: Can implementation be accelerated?

IFAD loan disbursement: Approximately 63%.
Investigative question: Does financial disbursement correspond to measurable results?

Water: Target of approximately 4,300 families.
Investigative question: Did the service actually reach the targeted households?

El Alaa: 51 rainwater cisterns announced through a 2025 tender.
Investigative question: How many were completed and placed into service?

16. What Do the Documents Establish — and What Still Requires Verification?

The official documents establish the project's financing, intervention area, original objectives, several implementation results, progress indicators, the existence of an official tender for 51 rainwater cisterns in El Alaa, other water and agricultural interventions, and delays affecting certain infrastructure projects.

However, several important questions still require additional verification.

These include the actual number of completed cisterns, the number of households using them, the sustainability of income-generating activities, the income they generate, the number of activities that have stopped, the real economic impact on youth and women, and the quality and continuity of water services.

These issues should be verified through local records, completion and acceptance documents, interviews with beneficiaries and, where possible, field reporting.

17. Questions for the Next Stage of the Investigation

What happened to the 51 cisterns in El Alaa?

Was the contract awarded? To whom? What was its value?

Were the works completed?

How many cisterns entered service?

How many households are benefiting?

What is the current status of the 427 income-generating activities?

How many are still operating?

How many young people obtained sustainable income?

How many women achieved greater economic independence?

Has the project achieved its objective of improving water access for approximately 4,300 families?

And what will happen to the supported activities and infrastructure after external financing ends?

CONCLUSION

The analysis of official documents concerning IESS-Kairouan reveals a major development project with a total cost of approximately US$51.27 million, covering extensive rural areas of Kairouan Governorate and addressing poverty, income generation, women and youth, water access and climate adaptation.

But funding is not the same as impact.

The original project design targeted 16,800 households and established a target of 1,820 income-generating activities, together with improved access to drinking water for approximately 4,300 families.

In contrast, the latest supervision data indicate approximately 427 established income-generating activities, representing around 28% of the target, while overall physical implementation stood at approximately 61% after around 72% of the project period had elapsed.

In El Alaa, an official document shows that a tender was launched in April 2025 for the construction of 51 semi-buried rainwater cisterns.

These figures do not prove that the project has failed.

They do, however, raise a fundamental question for any development programme financed through public and international resources:

FROM FUNDING TO IMPACT: WHAT HAS ACTUALLY CHANGED IN PEOPLE'S LIVES?

Methodology and Sources

This investigation is based on an analysis of official project documentation, particularly project design documents, supervision reports, the mid-term review, project data and procurement records.

The investigation does not make allegations of corruption or mismanagement without independent evidence. It distinguishes between:

Funding → Implementation → Outputs → Results → Impact

The final social and economic impact requires further verification through local documentation, completion and acceptance records, interviews with beneficiaries and field reporting.

Primary sources: IFAD – IESS-Kairouan Project; Official IESS-Kairouan project website; official IESS-Kairouan procurement records

Investigative Methodology & Accountability Focus

This investigation examines whether a major development project in Kairouan, Tunisia, is translating substantial financial commitments into measurable improvements for vulnerable households and communities.

The project, estimated at US$51.27 million, was designed to support approximately 16,800 households through poverty reduction, income-generating activities, improved water access and climate adaptation. The investigation compares the project’s planned objectives with available evidence on financial execution, physical implementation, income-generating activities, beneficiary participation and climate-related interventions.

Using official project information, public documents, implementation indicators and documentary cross-checking, the investigation identifies gaps between planned targets, reported progress and measurable outputs. It examines, in particular, the establishment of income-generating activities, the participation of women and young people, climate-related training and the implementation of water infrastructure.

Rather than assessing success solely through expenditure or completion rates, the investigation asks a central accountability question:

Are the resources committed to the project producing sustainable and measurable improvements in the lives of the people they are intended to support?

The investigation also identifies areas requiring further field verification, including infrastructure completion and use, the sustainability of income-generating activities, household-level economic benefits and the long-term impact of project interventions.

A document- and data-based investigative report
Prepared and published by: Mohamed Chaieb Barhoumi
ATEP MED – Arabic Digital Center for Media & Development

The reporting combines document-based investigation, financial and data analysis, source verification and an accountability-focused approach to development journalism.