The conference brought to light several critical challenges that undermine the effectiveness and sustainability of interventions in conflict-affected regions. These challenges are multifaceted, ranging from structural issues in program design to the complexities of funding and implementation.
One of the primary challenges discussed was the significant gap between program design and delivery. Many interventions, especially those initiated by international organisations, are often designed with limited input from local communities. This disconnect can result in programs that are poorly suited to the specific needs and contexts of the target populations. For example, skills programmes for young people are often driven by the interests of donors and do not always map onto skills that are needed and will lead to jobs. In these circumstances, young people may make the rational decision not to engage in programmes, but if the skills-work mismatch has not been identified then young people can be labelled as apathetic or hard to engage. Furthermore, the pressure to deliver quick results often leads to the prioritisation of short-term outcomes over long-term impact, further compromising the sustainability of these initiatives.
To address these issues, participants emphasised the need for more inclusive and participatory approaches to program design. Involving local stakeholders, particularly those who are directly affected by conflict, was seen as essential for ensuring that interventions are relevant and effective. This includes not only consulting with local communities but also empowering them to take a leading role in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of programs. Such an approach would help to bridge the gap between external expertise and local knowledge, creating more contextually appropriate and sustainable interventions.
Funding models also emerged as a significant barrier to sustainability. The conference highlighted the limitations of traditional funding mechanisms, which often favour large, established organisations over smaller, local entities. This can lead to a concentration of resources in the hands of a few, while local organisations – who often have a deep understanding of the context – struggle to access the support they need to operate effectively. Furthermore, where funding goes to international organisations, there is the risk that they withdraw from the context after programme implementation, leaving little impact beyond the cycle of the programme. Programming constraints can also mean that services for children are not linked up to services in young adulthood. Children’s services typically cut off at the age of 18 and there is not necessarily a transition into other services, leaving young people vulnerable at this point. Participants noted that a strategic vision is currently lacking in much of funding and programming for MENA region beyond tactical short-term interventions. Funding needs to promote and reflect the scope of longer-term strategic thinking.
Participants called for a re-evaluation of funding practices, advocating for more flexible and accessible funding models that prioritise local capacity building. This includes providing smaller grants that are more easily accessible to local organisations, extending the duration of funding cycles to allow for more sustainable planning, and reducing the bureaucratic hurdles that can impede local participation. Additionally, there was a strong recommendation for international donors to work more closely with local partners, fostering relationships based on mutual respect and shared goals.
Participants emphasised the need to shorten the supply chains of service delivery in conflict interventions to save resources and ensure that the majority of funding is directed toward impactful interventions rather than excessive planning. Local partners should be involved at an earlier stage of project design and implementation, though many may lack the necessary business structures to participate effectively. Providing business training and development support can help bridge this gap. One barrier to involving local organisations at the planning stage is the short notice given for many funding opportunities, which does not allow time to build meaningful partnerships before submitting funding applications. Extending the time between funding announcement and submission deadline would help; it would also help to split the process into an initial outline proposal stage followed by an invitation to some applicants to submit a full bid.
A focus on sustainability is essential, with local organisations being empowered to take the lead in early implementation, acknowledging that this process may be ‘messy’ and require adaptive learning along the way. Embracing a ‘fail fast’ approach – where evaluation and adjustment occur simultaneously with planning – was encouraged to allow for quicker responses to challenges. Moreover, participants discussed how this dialogue could generate ideas and programmes that inform policy, calling for a reduction in bureaucratic hurdles that slow down implementation, particularly when setting up governmental-level initiatives that can take years to materialise. One popular suggestion was to consider providing small amounts of funding for entrepreneurial approaches that have a high risk of failure – but also the potential to be high reward – rather than only those that are relatively low risk. This could employ a ‘Dragon’s Den’ format, where young people could bid for small amounts of funding to pursue highly novel programming approaches.
A critical issue discussed in this context, however, was the pressure on implementers to produce measurable outcomes within already short time frames. This results-driven approach can limit the scope of interventions, pushing organisations to focus on what is easily quantifiable rather than what is most impactful. Participants noted that this often leads to the neglect of more complex, long-term goals, such as social cohesion and community resilience, which are harder to measure but crucial for lasting peace and development.
To counter this, participants recommended adopting a more holistic approach to monitoring and evaluation, one that balances the need for accountability with the recognition that some of the most important outcomes, such as changes in community attitudes or the strengthening of local institutions, may take years to manifest and can be difficult to quantify. There was a call for funders to be more patient and supportive of innovative approaches that might not yield immediate results but have the potential for significant long-term impact. To avoid a focus on only those outcomes that are easily quantifiable, funders should consider a wider range of evidence in programming. This could include narrative accounts, case studies, and story-telling approaches that can capture a wider range of changes than can be measured with a set of quantitative measures. Funders could also benefit from visiting programmes to understand their impact, rather than just relying on reports. At the same time, it is important to critically evaluate programming that has not been successful to learn what led to failure. There are disincentives to organisations who are seeking further funding to admit failure; there needs to be space to explore the causes of poorer outcomes and collaboratively work towards improvements.
Finally, the discussions underscored the importance of sustaining interventions beyond the initial funding period. Participants stressed that for programs to be truly effective, they must be designed with a long-term perspective, including plans for how they will be maintained and adapted as circumstances change. This could involve building local capacity to take over the management of programs, securing diverse funding streams, and fostering partnerships that can provide ongoing support.
In conclusion, the conference identified several key challenges to the sustainability of interventions through the conflict cycle (including fragile, conflict-affected and post-conflict settings) including gaps between design and delivery, funding limitations, and the pressures of short-termism. The recommendations put forward emphasised the need for more inclusive, flexible, and patient approaches that prioritise local engagement, long-term impact, and sustainable outcomes. The need to create space for novel and higher risk interventions driven by entrepreneurial young people was also stressed. By addressing these challenges, policymakers and practitioners can create more effective and enduring solutions to the complex problems facing conflict-affected communities.