Projects and programmes eventually come to an end. To ensure they remain conflict-sensitive throughout the project cycle, the project conclusion must be planned and executed in a sensitive manner. Broadly speaking there are three approaches available: (a) withdrawal at termination of project; (b) extension of project; and (c) following up the project with a new phase. To conflict-sensitise this stage of planning, exit strategies need to be flexible enough to address changes in conflict dynamics, but proactive enough to ensure beneficiaries’ expectations are not unduly raised. Decisions should be well thought out, and should respond to dynamics identified through the conflict analysis and subsequent monitoring.

One approach to maintaining the balance between proactive planning and flexibility is to develop a menu of exit strategies that are reviewed throughout project implementation against the updated conflict analysis and regular monitoring. As the end of the intervention nears, the most appropriate exit strategy can be chosen. Early development of a variety of exit strategies will help to ensure that the eventual exit has been well thought out; is effectively communicated (along with other possible strategies and their associated triggers) at every stage of the project to minimise unrealistic expectations by staff and beneficiaries; and responds to the conflict dynamics identified through the updated conflict analysis. While the menu may create some ambiguity, this is a price worth paying to ensure that beneficiaries and others are prepared for the exit when it comes.

For projects that are intended to phase out completely, sustainable solutions need to be conflict sensitive. Most peacebuilding and development projects foresee a strategy of sustainable structures that stay behind to guarantee that the benefits of the intervention will remain in the long term. In order to make sustainability conflict sensitive, exit strategy planning needs to link back to the conflict analysis and scenarios, to see how they interact with these structures. Ensuring the sustainability of remaining structures and processes may require mainstreaming conflict sensitivity in local organisations and teaching conflict analysis skills to local partners.

For projects that intend to extend or adapt into new phases, it will be important to ensure that new interventions take into account any changes in conflict dynamics. Using the contingency plans outlined in Step 4 will help ensure that future approaches reflect not only the best-case scenarios but also the worst. The project should build on the successes of the previous project.

Whether the exit strategy is planned to be a complete phase-out or an adaptation into a new intervention, it is vitally important to plan for a proper conclusion of the initial intervention, including a comprehensive evaluation. In some cases the most negative impacts of interventions come not from their implementation, but rather from a poorly designed exit strategy (eg the impacts of an otherwise favourable intervention can be undermined when project staff, partners and suppliers suddenly find that their contracts will not be renewed). A well-planned exit strategy will not only help to seal the success of the initial project and leave a strong foundation for future interventions, but will also reduce the possibility of continuing existing activities – or designing new ones – that cause or exacerbate conflict.

Planning for the next intervention before the current intervention has completed its implementation phase is clearly not without its challenges. Nevertheless, thinking clearly and realistically about an exit strategy in a manner that balances being flexible with being proactive will help ensure the intervention is conflict-sensitive not only in its current phase, but beyond its anticipated lifespan.