Development, 2011, 54(2), (161–163) r 2011 Society for International Development 1011-6370/11 www.sidint.net/development/
Upfront
Sustainability for Development Programmes
STEPHEN F. MOSELEY Stephen F. Moseley is president emeritus of the Academy for Educational Development, treasurer of the Society of International Development International Governing Council, and associate editor of Development. KEYWORDS education; donors; financing agencies; stakeholders; collaboration; indicators
Introduction Those in charge of international development cooperation both planning and implementation have in the past 50 years understood that the programme they fund should be ‘sustainable’. Sustainable in this context means that the donor’s investment will be incorporated into the ongoing budget of the local or national government to help them take the next step and to scale-up implementation. However, those 50 years of development experience by international foundations and international donor agencies have shown that this outcome is seldom the case. Too often the definition of that sustainability has been inadequately defined for the particular programme and is not replicable in its original form. Moreover, each of the participants in the development programme has often had a different notion and definition of just what ‘sustainability’ means, and how it is discerned and should be measured.
What is sustainable in a project life cycle? At least five different perspectives on what is sustainable can be identified in a development process: (1) the ultimate beneficiary or local person, family community; (2) the local government or institution; (3) the intermediary assistance agency or agent (national or international); (4) the donor or financing agencies; and (5) the policy body external from the community such as a congress or parliament, or a foundation Development (2011) 54(2), 161–163. doi:10.1057/dev.2011.34
Development 54(2): Upfront board of directors appropriating the funds. These perspectives are often in tension with one another, even if the different perspectives are independently voiced through the programme cycle. Little time and attention is given to find and agree upon common ground before starting, or once a programme is underway. Indeed, there may well be other differences in the various layers of local, provincial, and national policy leaders, who are not adequately consulted in the beginning of the programme about sustainability expectations. These perspectives are shaped by differences in time frame expectations about realistic results. Some may see the results must be achieved within the time frame of the funding disbursement over say five to ten years, while others in the programme expect the return on investment over a life time or for the next generation of the participants in the community. The five groups rarely share the same expectation about the measurements of returns on investment in the project’s sustainability. Some expect the returns in traditional economic terms of trade returns, national economic growth, specific individual revenue generation, or even that the funding will be returned as profit to the donor. Others may see more realistically that the return will happen in the next generation, or with some later or additional programme investment. Just what to measure and who is responsible for such measurement and how to satisfactorily measure sustainability is still far from clear in the development context.
Tracking sustainability in schools To give an example, donors at the international and local levels assessing the sustainability of schooling investments for children have generally agreed to measure and track school attendance and completion rates of students at the school level and on a national basis. Children graduating from grade to grade, and moving among levels of education can indeed be a general measure of progress and the budgets needed for this progress are fairly predictable, and government agencies, parents, and donors generally 162 understand the progress.Yet today, we cannot be
certain that the quality of the innovations and the learning taking place by each student is of a satisfactory quality, or how it can be sustained as teachers turnover and are seldom revisited with additional help during their careers in the classroom. Nor can we be certain that the quality of education will be relevant to the changing nature of the global economy as measured by test scores or independent observations. Will the utility of the education changes have a longterm and sustainable impact on the needs of the community or the nation years into the future economy or life of the country. Even when measured, significant differences of perspective among the players or stakeholders about interpretation of the results can lead either to not enough adjustment during the course of a programme, or over correction based on measurements which did not allow enough time for the positive result to occur. None of these challenges should discourage investments in education, but rather should be the focus of decisions to build the best and most durable programmes. Otherwise the lack of shared understanding of progress will in turn undermine the programme funding, or cause the introduction of an untested alternative approach which can delay the results, or even end the programme before it has a chance to succeed or become sustainable.
Reasonable expectations What is a reasonable expectation and definition then for sustainability in development programmes? Ideally, every development programme should have results for individuals and their communities, which enable them to become more self-sufficient and realize for themselves the benefits of the new information, practices, technologies, and ideas that were at the heart of the programme. The centre of measurement and definition of sustainability should not be whether the programme itself can and will be continued, but rather whether the programme has within its objectives and accomplishments the opportunity for those participating in it to see and anticipate how the results can be used and applied to better their lives for the future. All of the programme
Moseley: Development Programmes policy leaders and implementing partners for the programme must involve themselves sufficiently at the outset of the programme design to be sure they are influenced and guided by the views and expectations of the participants themselves. In the case of children, this means national planners and experts must allow the programme needs for the children be defined and represented by the views and expectations of their parents, community leaders, and classroom teachers in the local communities.
Indicators and fail safes A good measure of programme sustainability is, therefore, the identification of indicators which first and foremost will show that the programme ideas and methods can be owned and shared by the participants or beneficiaries themselves. Only then should the programme plans and assumptions about its future define the commitments and agreements among the donors and the implementers. This is more than a retrospective commitment to a philosophy of ‘small is beautiful’ from the 1970s or ‘all that is global must only be local’. Rather, it is a recognition that significant development programmes for at-scale impact, durability and sustainability are those that reflect the expectations, understanding and ownership, and experiences of the people most affected over time. The plan for national scope and global programmes must build upon those values and perspectives, and recognize the special barriers to and acceptance of change which can be tolerated and incorporated within a community. Sustainability in programmes also calls for patience and long-term perspectives by all public and private donors and implementing partners. Almost no programmes have an accurate model to satisfactorily measure lasting change in less
than ten years. Frequently, we must recognize that the commitment among the five partner groups or constituencies mentioned above must have a generational perspective for change to happen over a time of 15^20 years for generational change. Still such programmes must also build in fail-safe points to decide on urgent changes in programme direction along the way about every three years, and build in a mechanism to recognize failures, so that corrections will be made, or the programme investment ended in favour of better options. Too often some donors label as failures those programmes which cannot end the funding after ten years, and have graduation of the innovations become independent of the donor by that time. On the other side, too often programmes embedded within a traditional government bureaucracy can lead to innovations in the programmes being overcome by traditional practices in the bureaucracy. Allowing for patience, measurement, change and adjustment on a reasonable time frame often leads to the most successful and sustainable programmes and behaviours.
Collaboration Every sector in development wrestles with these difficult choices, but few programmes build in the flexibility for revisions, adjustments, new consensus, or affording the time for the people most affected to share their concerns, and understanding of what works and does not, so as to chart the longer term course for sustainability. The key is collaboration and understanding at the start of every programme among the many stakeholders in the programme, and the willingness to explore and create partnerships between and among the public and private agencies and with the citizens locally whom they desire to serve.
163
