Introduction

The objective is to ensure that the beneficial
impact of the project continues after the
project has finished

The idea of sustainable impact has at least
become generally recognized and accepted
by all parties in the development process
for shiree both the DFID and the GoB MTRs
placed emphasis on sustainability
We have at least moved beyond the “it was
working when I left” approach

For Infrastructure projects: a mechanism that will ensure
the continued operation and maintenance of the facilities –
eg toll fees, community engagement, transfer of ownership
and responsibility to government or the private sector

For Technical assistance/capacity building projects :
embedding skills in sustainably funded local institutions,
permanent changes to systems, procedures or laws,
establishing accountability mechanisms

For private sector market development projects- viable
independent businesses established

Beneficiaries have been lifted off the bottom
through the project intervention – how to
ensure that they will not just sink back down
once the project is ended?
- protecting the gains, continuing the direction
of travel
“The responsibility will be handed over to local government” – but with little or
no contact with local government
“The project will be absorbed into the government budget” – but no one asked
the Ministry of Finance!
“ The business will be sustainable through profits” – but failing to recognize
that during the project the business relied on subsidy
“The community or group will manage the activity” – but ignoring how much
the group was dependent on the NGO field staff
“Dependent individuals will transfer to government safety nets” – but no
change in the mechanism through which these are allocated
“beneficiaries will transition into mainstream services” – but are the service
providers for this segment available?
“local elites will continue to provide support” – is there any incentive or
mechanism in place?
“assets have been transferred” – they can easily be lost

Exit or sustainability strategies often fail to
address the underlying factors causing or
tending to sustain extreme poverty – and
hence have a low probability of success
Poverty Drivers : shocks, health, family
fragmentation, lost assets/savings
Poverty maintainers: low wages, no access to
social protection, low social capital, debt, no
regular work
thresholds
70
35.2
UPL 2012
60
21.1%
LPL 2012
52
Income PCPD
50
40
34
28.2
30
22
20
Exclusion threshold
17
March 2010 mean
10
0
3-5%
Threshold 2012
March 2012 mean
61

For Scale Fund (Round One, Phase One):
between March 2010 and March 2012
beneficiaries showed a 66% increase in
average income (rural) and 90% (urban)
(before inflation)
CMS3 data

But 76% (rural) and 31% urban BHH remain in
extreme poverty on the basis on the HIES
Lower Poverty 2010 line adjusted for inflation

Between March 2011 and March 2012 there
was a “plateauing effect” in the rate of
improvement across several indicators

How to keep people moving in an upward
trajectory beyond the period of direct asset
and cash transfer?- or at least to ensue that
they don’t slip back down

How to ensure that beneficiaries can become
engaged with other income and wealth
generating processes?

There is no magic formula that will ensure
sustainability

Government agencies (national/local), NGOs,
communities and community organisations
and the private sector are all likely to be part
of a realistic and achievable strategy to
sustain the positive impact of project
interventions