Not only wastewater reuse is cost-effective in the long-term and saves valuable fresh water, but also decreases the pollution of the fragile ecosystem the Mediterranean Sea has.[footnoteRef:34] Still, despite being beneficial for everybody, such projects require careful planning and sustainable funding and is the reason why DEMOWARE took eight years to be completed. [34: Ibid. ]
Weakness of the research is the fact that I managed to interview only one side of DEMOWARE. The various articles related to the topic and the European Commission's press releases compensated to a certain point, but it would have been a more reliable research, if I could interview some of the local authorities and/or any regional environmental organisations.
Bureaucracy is an important foundation of the contemporary European society and is vital that people understand how it functions and what are the benefits of it. Such bureaucratic society might seem not very flexible for some, but it is evident that it plays an important role for the stability and competitiveness of the European Union. DEMOWARE could have theoretically taken less than the eight years that transpired but rushing things would have been a bad idea. Delaying it more would be an option if the proper due diligence and such had not been done. One really has to define "benefit" when it comes to the research question. In terms of people that oppose the DEMOWARE initiative, any delay would be a roadblock for something that they opposed. However, delays in terms of process and evidence are much more important to assess. Delays can and should be put in place if things are amiss because the final product might be faulty if this is not done. Conversely, delaying the DEMOWARE project or anything else like it without good cause would just feed into the anti-bureaucracy mind-set that a lot of people have. Accelerations or decelerations in the timeline of a program like DEMOWARE can either be beneficial or wasteful depending on the presence of the reasons for the change pace and whether those reasons are prudent and valid. The key is to make the proper strategic choices at the proper time. Beyond that, the rationale and general transparency when making such decisions is extremely important. People concerned with a governmental project or one that is bureaucratic in nature will be more forgiving if it is obvious, apparent and revealed by the bureaucratic leadership what is happening and why it needs to be done the way it is being done [footnoteRef:35]. [35: Nze, Festus C., and Anayo D. Nkamnebe. 2003. "Internalising effectiveness and accountability for the public good: strategic choices for public sector bureaucracies in Africa." Management Decision 41, no. 3: 281. Business Source Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed May 15, 2016).]