Thinking about and evaluating network sustainability

Sustainability is a key principle of both URBACT and of AFD Smart City strategy. In a context of scarce resources, how does one plan for sustainability when launching a flagship programme that can potentially be a one-off? How can sustainability be embedded in the work that is delivered so that the results achieved during the programme can outlive it?

Our approach and methods

• Defining sustainability: Involve relevant stakeholders in a discussion around what is understood by sustainability in the context of the project at hand, and in which key areas it should be considered.
  • It can be about the community – people continuing to exchange and work together even if the work has finished; For instance, ASToN (2019-2022) has progressively built a sense of belonging across the group thanks to our joint activities and network moments. The relationships that now exist between people who’ve participated in ASToN will endure far beyond the life of the project.
  • It can be about the local projects and strategies – For instance, ASToN (2019-2022) has defined sustainability as a key principle and objective for the Local Action Plans. And possibly, this might be the single most important point where achieving sustainability is key. Within ASToN (2019-2022), cities ensured the sustainability of their Local Action Plans by making sure all the steps they took in drafting their plans strictly adhered to the city needs and objectives they’d identified. Furthermore, this approach encouraged cities to take ownership of their projects, by thinking about sustainability from the start and testing it through experimentation.

• Building strong interpersonal relations from the start: Use mechanisms e.g. accountability buddies, pairing cities together to do various assignments, or clustering small groups of cities by themes, to build strong interpersonal relations and ensure higher levels of accountability; Even if we don’t have direct visibility on these exchanges we echo of their existence; they tend to be activated when one of the city leaders looks for support and guidance.

• Network-level Project exit options and how to evaluate them: for a network like ASToN it’s not a given that it will last forever or that it needs to. Sometimes the shorter, sharper focus of a project can be enough to put activities in motion that will shift behaviour and approach, and lead to long-term impact. For ASToN we knew we had funding for an initial 3 years together as a network. We considered multiple ‘exit’ options of what to do beyond that initial funding. They were a mix of keeping the organisation of ASToN, the ‘engine’ that drives it, central, or moving that engine to sit with one or many of the cities. The options we considered include:
  • Close – shut down the network
  • Self organise – nominate a rotating lead from one of the cities who will be responsible for facilitating it and keeping it going
  • Follow-on funding – seek further funding from the same funders and new ones to finance the network level
  • Thematic funding – seek funding for a subset of the cities working on a particular theme e.g. mobility or in a particular region e.g. E Africa
  • Membership – shift to a membership model and charge cities a fee to join. Current members have preferential rates. New members pay higher rates.
  • Sponsorship – seek sponsorship funding from digital or tech partners that would benefit from access to 11 local authorities
  • Hybrid – some mix of the above