What is being funded, and why it matters
European Commission Fails to Respond to Formal Accountability Demands on EU-Funded Programmes
Since 2015, the European Union has co-financed the West Bank Protection Consortium (WBPC), a programme led by the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) operating in Area C of the West Bank. Additional co-funders include eleven EU member states, the United Kingdom, and Canada.
The lead implementing partner’s own published strategic document, Area C is Everything, states explicitly that the WBPC does not seek authorisation from the Israeli Civil Administration for structures it builds in Area C. This is not an allegation; it is a declared compliance position in the implementing partner’s own words.
Since 2015, the WBPC has constructed schools, clinics, 16 kilometres of water infrastructure, and 17 kilometres of roads in Area C, as confirmed in the NRC’s own donor documentation submitted to Sida (Sweden). These projects were carried out without authorisation from the Israeli Civil Administration, and without any published legal opinion demonstrating that this operating model is permitted under Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/96.
In multiple cases, structures lawfully demolished pursuant to Israeli court rulings were subsequently rebuilt using additional EU funding. This rebuild-after-demolition cycle appears to be without parallel in any other DG ECHO jurisdiction worldwide.
EU funds were also used for the construction of a school at Khirbet Zanuta, a designated protected archaeological site, without a building permit, without an archaeological impact assessment, and during active court proceedings (HCJ 9715/07). In December 2023, EU spokesperson Peter Stano confirmed EU funding for the project on the record. No compliance review followed, and no funding was suspended.
In response to these findings, Jews United has referred EU humanitarian grant programmes in Area C of the West Bank to the European Court of Auditors, OLAF, and the European Ombudsman, after seven named European Commission officials failed to respond to formal accountability demands within a 20-working-day deadline.
This matter raises serious questions regarding legal compliance, administrative accountability, transparency in the use of taxpayer-funded humanitarian frameworks, and the integrity of EU operations in contested jurisdictions.