Over the years, I have supported the design and implementation of many development projects whose theories of change rest on a familiar set of assumptions: adequate policy environments, predictable economic conditions, functioning markets, reliable infrastructure and services, and safe security conditions. These projects also tend to assume that climate shocks will not disrupt implementation, that institutions have the capacity to deliver, and that social and behavioral dynamics will remain supportive.
Results-based management frameworks define assumptions as “the necessary conditions that must exist if the relationships in the theory of change are to behave as expected.”¹ In other words, they sit inside the logic of the project and shape how results are expected to unfold. Projects are therefore built on the expectation that certain external conditions will remain in place throughout implementation. From what I have seen, this is often where things start to come undone. In fragile contexts, conditions shift, institutions lose capacity, and disruptions become part of how the environment functions.
When those conditions no longer hold, projects continue to operate as designed. At that point, what are they still able to deliver? What happens then?
When Instability Is the Operating Environment
Consider the Caribbean. Projects are often designed on the unrealistic assumption that the climate will not disrupt implementation. In reality, though, the region sits within the Atlantic hurricane basin, where tropical cyclones occur every year. According to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), an average season produces around 14 named storms each year, several of which reach hurricane strength.²
That’s not unique to the Caribbean. In parts of Asia, projects are still designed on the assumption that conflict won’t hinder or halt implementation altogether, even in countries where instability is ongoing. Data from the Uppsala Conflict Data Program (Pettersson & Öberg, 2024) shows that active armed conflicts continue in countries such as Afghanistan, Myanmar, Pakistan, and the Philippines (UCDP, 2024). Conditions shift, access changes, and timelines are affected over the course of implementation.
In West and Central Africa, political instability follows a similar pattern. The Africa Center for Strategic Studies reports that the sub-region experienced a surge in coups between 2020 and 2023, affecting countries such as Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Guinea, and Chad.³ When this happens, funding is often suspended, partnerships are put on hold, and operations are restricted.
In these environments, instability is not unusual; it is part of how things actually work.
When Project Design Ignores Context
If a project depends on stability in a fragile context, its design does not match the conditions in which it is meant to work. Organizations need to be clear about their capacity to operate in these environments and whether they can actually deliver under unstable conditions, whether through their own strategies and experience or by working with partners who can.
Too often, I have seen projects suspend core activities when instability emerges and redirect funding toward conferences, workshops, and training sessions. These activities may have value, but they are rarely the intended purpose of development funding.
These projects are designed to support women, children, and youth facing serious and often urgent challenges. If these initiatives are expected to deliver services and opportunities in these environments, then their design needs to reflect the conditions in which they operate.
Designing Projects That Succeed in Instability
Instead of assuming that fragile contexts will behave like stable ones, projects need to be designed to continue operating when things change. And that goes beyond having a resilient contingency plan. For example, projects may benefit from working closely with local organizations and institutions that already operate despite insecurity and rapidly changing conditions.
Funding runs into the same issue. In fragile contexts, donor support can be interrupted by political shifts, sanctions, or changes in priorities, and when a project depends on a single donor, there is very little room to absorb that kind of disruption. A broader mix of funding options, including partnerships with the private sector or results-based approaches, can help reduce that risk.
These are only some examples among many other possibilities that organizations working in fragile environments may already be exploring or could further develop. The broader point is simple: project design must reflect the realities of the conditions projects are actually working in.
References
¹ Global Affairs Canada. (2022). Results-Based Management for International Assistance Programming: A How-to Guide. Government of Canada, Global Affairs Canada. p. 15.
https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/assets/pdfs/funding-financement/how-to-guide.pdf
² National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (2021). Tropical Cyclone Climatology: Average Atlantic Hurricane Season (1991–2020).
https://www.noaa.gov/tropical-cyclone-climatology
³ Africa Center for Strategic Studies. (2023). Africa’s Wave of Coups Continues.
https://africacenter.org/in-focus/africa-crisis-coups/
Pettersson, T., & Öberg, M. (2024). Organized violence 1989–2023. Journal of Peace Research, 61(4). Data from the Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP), Uppsala University.