Reality, however, falls somewhat short.  What does sustainability mean when the government lacks the capacity – or the will – to assume responsibility for service delivery?  What does sustainability mean in a country like Chad, or the Congo?

There’s often a kabuki-element to coordinating with a government in a failed or failing state, the triumph of form over function.  Consultations, permissions, endless coordination meetings, when everyone knows the projects will end as soon as the NGO leaves, or donor support disappears.

This is not to say that the situation is hopeless, or that the work serves no purpose.  A mother doesn’t die in childbirth, a child doesn’t die of diarrhea, a girl learns to read.  These are incredible things, even if the project itself isn’t sustainable in the long-term, even if the clinic or school will eventually sit empty.

Sustainability is a reasonable goal in some countries, and an empty promise in others.  To that end, we need a new lexicon, a more accurate rhetoric.  We need a way of describing our programs that describes – accurately describes – what we can realistically achieve, and what we can’t.  It’s the least we owe to ourselves, our donors, and the people we serve.

Michael Kleinman spent a number of years working for aid agencies in Afghanistan, across east and Central Africa, and in Iraq.

Editor’s Note: Establishing a strong relationship with government can be a challenge in many sub-Saharan African countries, particularly in conflict settings. Luckily for the Touch Foundation, Tanzania has enjoyed more than a decade of political stability. For more on Tanzania’s political, economic and development situation, click here.