Please, Stop Saying Projects Are Sustainable

An earlier version of this piece was posted at the Who Cares Campaign blog.

Somewhere, in a magical, mythical developing country, all aid programs are sustainable.  Using participatory approaches, NGOs work with government ministries to design and implement projects which address various underlying causes of poverty, supported by donors who are committed to long-term engagement.   It's a development utopia; an aid worker nirvana.

Reality, however, falls somewhat short.  What does sustainability mean when the government lacks the capacity - or the will - to assume responsibility for service delivery?  What does sustainability mean when communities live in constant fear of soldiers and variously-acronymed rebels?  What does sustainability mean in a country like Chad, or the Congo?

There's often a kabuki-element to coordinating with a government in a failed or failing state, the triumph of form over function.  Consultations, permissions, endless coordination meetings, when everyone knows the projects will end as soon as the NGO leaves, or donor support disappears.

Sustainability is a reasonable goal in some countries, and an empty promise in others. Is it possible - is it honest - even to speak about sustainability in a place like Afghanistan?  In eastern Congo, or southern Sudan, or Zimbabwe?

This is not to say that the situation is hopeless, or that the work serves no purpose.  A mother doesn't die in childbirth, a child doesn't die of diarrhea, a girl learns to read.  These are incredible things, even if the project itself isn't sustainable in the long-term, even if the clinic or school will eventually sit empty.

Instead, we need to start describing our programs and projects in a way that describes what we can realistically achieve, and what we can't.

[Photo of vaccination campaign in eastern Congo from Julien Harneis' photostream on flickr - Creative Commons, Attribution]