The Court of Audit has released a sharply worded report about Flanders’ lack of transparency and political meddling in the planning of crucial infrastructure works such as roads, tunnels, bike paths, bridges and more
Home News
Infrastructure works are badly planned and non-transparent: Scathing report from Court of Audit
Lisa Bradshaw
Published:
A new report by Belgium’s Court of Audit raises serious concerns about political influence and a lack of structure when it comes to infrastructure works carried out in Flanders.
The Court of Audit, responsible for assessing how governments spend public money, was examining the Flemish government’s Investeringsprogramma, or Investment Program (GIP). The programme was introduced a few years ago to ensure a more transparent and objective system for distributing funding for the maintenance of roads, bridges and tunnels, as well as for new projects.
According to the Court of Audit, these objectives have not been achieved – in fact quite the contrary.
High risk or low?
According to the Flemish minister for mobility and public works, Annick De Ridder (N-VA), the selection process is carried out objectively, with priority given to “projects with the greatest impact and the strongest effects on the economy and society as a whole.”
The Court of Audit raises “serious questions about that claim,” reporting that “the political character of the process has only become more extreme”.
According to the report, the decision about which projects do or do not receive funding often appears to be little more than guesswork. There is no sign of an objective or professional analysis, and there are inexplicable swings in the assessments of projects.
“One project moved from the highest to the lowest risk category,” reads the report, while the scores assigned to cycling infrastructure also “sometimes changed remarkably.” When the Court recalculated those scores, it concluded that they “cannot be correct”.
The selection of projects was largely the result of political horse-trading rather than based on an objective decision-making framework
MP Jasper Pillen (Anders)
The Flemish administration was unable to explain these shortcomings when questioned by the Court. It responded that it had “not systematically compared” the scores.
“It is not clear to the Court of Audit how projects received a particular score,” said MP Jasper Pillen of opposition party Anders. “It is also absolutely unclear how projects were subsequently ranked based on those scores. The selection of projects within the GIP was therefore largely the result of political horse-trading rather than being based on an objective decision-making framework.”
Every year in Flanders, some €2.5 billion goes towards infrastructure works, which the Court has deemed insufficient. Budget increases have not kept up with inflation and “the promise to invest an additional €530 million in 2025 remained, in practice, limited to €363 million.”
A lack of proper investment has created an enormous shortfall, according to the Court, particularly in the maintenance of existing infrastructure. It estimates that €14.5 billion is needed to eliminate the current backlog – or €1.45 billion every year for 10 years, a budgetary impossibility.
The consequences of this are significant. “Several entities have expressed their concerns to the Court of Audit,” the report states. This includes the government’s own Roads and Traffic Agency which has said that project not carried out in time eventually become emergency situations, requiring “lower speed limits or the closure of traffic lanes, tunnels and bridges”.
‘Disaster waiting to happen’
Groen joined Anders in reacting to the report. “While bridges, tunnels and locks are ageing, this government is simply pushing the bill into the future,” said MP Bogdan Vanden Berghe. “Financially unwise, but above all worrying for safety. We are waiting for a disaster on the scale of the collapsed Morandi viaduct in Genoa, where 43 people lost their lives.”
This might not be an exaggeration. “I have rarely seen the Court of Audit be so scathing about political arbitrariness, calculations that do not add up and administrative chaos,” noted Jos D'Haese of PVDA.
Even the ruling parties are expressing some concern. N-VA city councillor for mobility in Tervuren, Marc Charlier, criticised party colleague De Ridder in Het Nieuwsblad because he still has not received funding to address what he says is a dangerous road. “Disappointing. I have to take her at her word that she made the assessment correctly,” he said.
De Ridder responds
De Ridder’s response is also included in the Court’s report: “We are convinced that we have taken steps in the right direction,” to address the problems, she said, admitting that a “more neutral oversight” was needed. “Given the budgetary constraints, the GIP is becoming even more important than ever before.”
She also referred to the report in the Mobility Committee of the Flemish Parliament. “You know that I do not always agree with what the Court of Audit puts forward,” she said. “We do in fact have extensive and well-established assessment frameworks. And very clear priorities.”