WHAT REMAINS WHEN FUNDING ENDS?

When funding for humanitarian projects ends, the question remains: what remains? People affected by crises should not depend solely on external organizations for essential public services. The author, Wale Osofisan, has spent much of their career working in places where public systems are under immense pressure due to conflict, displacement and institutional disruption. He emphasizes that if development is to be sustainable, investments must be made in the systems that sustain it.

This is especially true for philanthropy. Philanthropic capital can fund innovation, take risks and support initiatives that governments might not yet have the resources or willingness to finance. However, if this investment creates another program that ceases when funding ends, it raises the question: have we truly invested in development or merely financed another intervention?

The author illustrates this point through the HeRoN health systems strengthening program, which was implemented in Northeast Nigeria, a region affected by years of conflict, displacement and institutional disruption. The immediate needs were enormous, but the program was designed to strengthen the institutions that would provide services in the future.

A key outcome was the integration of Community Health Influencers, Promoters and Services (CHIPS) into the government system. This was significant because it ensured that the community health workers were part of a system that could continue beyond the life of the project, rather than disappearing when funding ended.

The author draws a distinction between the strengths of international organizations and governments in fragile and conflict-affected settings. An INGO may arrive with a large, 20-inch pipeline capable of quickly and efficiently pushing an intervention through a project. However, these pipelines are often temporary, as their funding is concentrated and they only exist as long as the funding lasts.

Governments, on the other hand, may have hundreds of smaller, two-inch pipelines that are often old, poorly maintained, or partially blocked. While these may be less efficient, collectively, they can reach more people, and crucially, they remain in place after external funding ends.

The author argues that systems strengthening should focus on repairing, strengthening and reconnecting the public systems that citizens will ultimately depend on. This requires patience, as institutional capability is harder to fund than a project. It may involve strengthening procurement systems, improving government data, supporting local health and education authorities, building public-sector leadership, improving financial management, and strengthening accountability between service providers and users.

While these efforts may not make for attractive photos or press statements, they are crucial for ensuring that progress survives beyond the life of the project.

Ultimately, the author stresses that people affected by crises should not have to depend indefinitely on external organizations for basic public services. A child in Borno should be able to access essential services without relying on external aid.