Module 3: Sustainability

In 1987, the United Nations Brundtland Commission convened to discuss the repercussions of environmental degradation on economic and social development. The following definition of “sustainable development” emerged as a conference outcome:

“Sustainable Development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”(1)

The term “sustainability,” while frequently tossed around by development professionals and NGOs, “has neither been clearly defined nor consistently applied. Its meaning is often construed differently by various actors.”(2) In many cases, the meaning of “sustainability” has come to “favor the allocation of funding resources to organizations that are long-lived rather than effective” in the particular field in which they work.(3)

In an article entitled “’Sustainability’ in Global Health,” Yang et al. attempt to establish the definition of sustainability as it relates to health promotion by asserting:

“Our argument is that the current conceptualization of ‘sustainability’ results in the continued funding of programs that ought to end; the neglect of assets and capabilities that are most directly relevant to health outcomes; and, most importantly, shortages of essential consumables for restoring the patients in resource-poor communities … A critical distinction lies in the difference between the goal of sustaining health and the practice of sustaining an organization or the activities of an organization … Refocusing attention on sustainable health outcomes, rather than on sustaining organizations, is the lynchpin in resolving the paradox behind ineffective aid.”(4)

The authors of the article thus argue that achieving “sustainability” has much more to do with finding interventions that work, reinforcing them, and replicating them, than it does with financially fueling long-term projects that may or may not be effective. The process of identifying assets, forming partnerships, strengthening capacity-building opportunities, and utilizing resources intelligently is what should, ideally, be sustained. The best way to do this, the article contends, is to unleash “the energy and creativity” of locals to take control of health infrastructure transformation and upkeep.(5)

With this reconceptualization of sustainability in healthcare programs, “[t]he implication is that once they achieve their specific objectives, some programs should be discontinued, migrated, or reorganized. Successful programs should build cumulatively over time on the successes of discontinued prior programs as part of broader strategies for improved health. Under this approach, health providers cultivate locally relevant, specialized expertise and funders and coordinating bodies develop global strategies that unify and integrate the interventions.”(6)

In sensitizing their priorities to this article’s definition of the delicate and complicated goal of sustainability, organizations and development groups can avoid the mindset that equates extensive organizational or programmatic lifespan to sustainability. Instead, in amplifying and advocating the processes which produce widespread participation, informed investment, capacity build-up, and local enthusiasm, development workers can achieve sustainable models for growth.

Sustainability is a central tenet of the Asset-Based Community Development model, and is seen as vital for any initiative or project. Sustainability is often more achievable in the Asset-Based Community Development model versus in traditional approaches, since ABCD is driven primarily by the goals and assets of the community. Projects are more sustainable in the long run since local communities are involved and invested from the beginning, allowing them to better take over when outside organizations leave. A study looking at the effectiveness of programs following the ABCD model in North West England interviewed people involved in the programs to hear their thoughts on the model and how the projects ran. One participant illustrated the sustainability of ABCD initiatives explaining that:

“The deficit approach logically leads you to a point where all the answers come from outside. So it’s an outsider, whether you’re an individual or a community . . . . . . If you start with an asset strengths based approach, the answer primarily comes from inside, which means it’s much more sustainable."(7)

Creating a practical framework by which local citizens can come to realize their own potential is a process that can sustain and persist beyond the initial involvement of outside developers.

Footnotes

(1) “Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future.” United Nations. http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf.

(2) Yang, A., Farmer, P. E., & McGahan, A. M. “’Sustainability’ in Global Health.” 5.2 (Routledge, 5 January 2010): 130.

(3) Ibid.

(4) Ibid.

(5) Ibid., 134.

(6) Ibid, 131.

(7) Harrison, R., Blickem, C., Lamb, J., Kirk, S., & Vassilev, I. (2019). Asset-based community development: narratives, practice, and conditions of possibility—a qualitative study with community practitioners. SAGE Open, 9(1), 2158244018823081.