The true measure of success isn't how long a project lasts it's what remains when it does.
For decades, development has been organised around projects. Across Africa and the world, governments, civil society organisations and development partners design programmes to improve livelihoods, strengthen institutions, expand access to essential services and respond to some of society's most pressing challenge. These projects often bring together significant financial resources, technical expertise and local partnerships, creating opportunities that can transform communities.
The scale of this investment is considerable. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Official Development Assistance (ODA) reached a record USD 223.7 billion in 2023, reflecting the international community's continued commitment to tackling poverty, inequality, climate change and other global development challenges. Yet while billions of dollars are invested every year, one question continues to challenge the development sector: what happens after the project ends?
Too often, success is measured by what happens during implementation. We count the number of workshops held, grants disbursed, schools constructed, policies developed or people trained. These are important indicators of progress, but they tell us very little about whether that progress will last.
A community may receive new infrastructure, but who will maintain it? Young people may receive entrepreneurship training, but will they continue to build businesses without ongoing support? A local organisation may implement a successful project, but has it strengthened its governance, leadership and resource mobilisation enough to sustain its work beyond donor funding?
These are not questions that can be answered in a project's final report. They are questions about sustainability.
Perhaps, then, we have been asking the wrong question all along. Instead of asking how long a development project should continue, perhaps we should be asking what it leaves behind.
Because the best development projects are not those that last forever. They are the ones that make themselves unnecessary.
Projects Have Timelines. Communities Do Not.
Every development project has an end date. Some run for two years. Others for five. A few receive extensions. Eventually, however, every project reaches its conclusion.
Communities do not.
The realities they face, whether unemployment, food insecurity, climate change, limited access to essential services or constrained economic opportunities, do not disappear simply because a project has ended. These challenges persist long after the final workshop has been held and the last report has been submitted.
This is precisely why sustainability has become one of the internationally recognised criteria for evaluating development effectiveness. The OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) identifies sustainability as a key measure of success by asking whether the benefits of a project are likely to continue once external support has ended.
Ultimately, a successful development project should do more than respond to today's challenges. It should leave communities with the knowledge, capacity and confidence to address tomorrow's challenges using their own leadership, systems and resources.
When Success Disappears
Imagine two communities receiving support to improve access to clean water.
In both communities, a borehole is installed. At first, the results are almost identical. Families spend less time collecting water, access to safe drinking water improves and children's health begins to improve. By most project indicators, both interventions appear equally successful.
Five years later, however, a very different picture emerges.
In one community, the borehole no longer works. There is no maintenance committee, no repair fund and no one with the technical skills to fix it. As a result, families return to unsafe water sources and many of the project's early gains are lost.
In the second community, local residents established a water management committee, agreed on regular maintenance contributions, trained local technicians and developed clear systems for managing the facility. When repairs became necessary, the community organised and financed them without waiting for external support.
Both projects delivered the same infrastructure.
Only one invested in the people, systems and local ownership needed to sustain it.
This simple example illustrates one of the most important lessons in development: lasting change is not determined by what a project delivers, but by what communities are able to sustain after the project has ended.
The Difference Between Delivery and Capacity
Development projects often focus on delivering outputs. Outputs are important because they provide immediate improvements in people's lives. However, outputs alone rarely create lasting change. A training workshop is an output. Whether participants continue applying those skills years later is an outcome.
A community meeting is an output. Whether that community continues organising itself to solve local challenges after external support has ended is impact. A grant may finance activities for several years. Strong leadership, accountable governance, local partnerships and resource mobilisation can sustain change for decades.
The World Bank has consistently emphasised that capable institutions and strong local systems are essential for achieving sustainable development outcomes. Projects that strengthen local capacity are better positioned to continue delivering benefits beyond donor funding because they invest not only in activities but also in the people and organisations responsible for carrying them forward.
Ownership Cannot Begin at the End
One of the most frequently used phrases in development is community ownership. Yet ownership is often treated as something that can be handed over during a project's closing ceremony. It cannot.
Ownership is built from the very beginning. It grows when communities participate in identifying priorities rather than simply validating pre-designed interventions. It grows when local organisations strengthen their governance systems, when community leaders gain confidence to make decisions and when people see themselves not as beneficiaries but as partners in creating change.
Communities are far more likely to sustain initiatives they have helped design than those developed entirely on their behalf. Ownership is not an exit strategy. It is a way of working.
So, What Should Remain When a Project Ends?
If development projects are temporary, what should they leave behind?
Not just infrastructure.
Not only reports.
Not simply statistics.
They should leave behind stronger organisations that can continue serving their communities. They should strengthen local leadership capable of mobilising others around shared goals.
They should create partnerships that continue beyond funding cycles.
They should equip young people with skills that remain relevant throughout their lives.
They should build trust, confidence and local systems that allow communities to respond to future challenges using their own knowledge, resources and networks.
These are not always the easiest results to measure. Yet they are often the ones that matter most.
Rethinking Success
Perhaps the development sector has become accustomed to measuring success by what happens during a project's lifetime. But what if we also measured what happens five years later?
Are community structures still functioning?
Are local organisations attracting new partners and resources?
Are the skills acquired during the project still being applied?
Have communities continued adapting and improving the initiative without external direction?
These questions shift our attention from activity to sustainability.
From delivery to resilience.
From dependence to ownership.
The Future of Development
None of this suggests that development projects are unnecessary.
On the contrary, they remain essential for addressing complex social, economic and environmental challenges. The question is not whether projects should exist.
The question is what they are designed to achieve.
If the ultimate purpose of development is to empower people and strengthen communities, then every project should be working towards a future in which its continued presence is no longer required.
That future is not created in the final months of implementation.
It is built through every decision made from the project's first day: whose voices shape priorities, who makes decisions, who develops new skills, who leads, who learns and who takes responsibility.
The most successful development projects are therefore not those that last forever. They are the ones that leave behind communities with the confidence, capacity and ownership to continue creating change long after the project itself has come to an end.
Perhaps that is the real measure of success.
Not whether a project continues.
But whether the change does.
If you would like to contribute to this discussion, please do so via info@zgf.org.zm
