International Network for Economics and Conflict

Robust monitoring and evaluation (M&E) strategies are central to the efficacy of economic reconstruction efforts in conflict-affected states. Planners and practitioners need to balance the need for accuracy and consistency with the importance of flexibility and trade-offs in rapidly changing security, political, and economic environments.

The main logistical challenges to effective M&E are security and access. Insecurity is a source of significant frustration for M&E personnel in conflict-affected states. Safety issues are particularly amplified for women and local informants. The situation is further exacerbated when domestic insecurity is compounded by relatively porous borders and indistinguishable populations. To a degree, these security concerns can be allayed by coordinating with military movements. However, aligning M&E teams with military schedules can have serious drawbacks.

Successful M&E requires a detailed understanding of local conditions, institutions and individuals, preferably documented in a baseline survey. This lays the groundwork for effective monitoring of project results. However, access to the project sites by local and international M&E staff can be a daunting challenge because of security concerns.

While overcoming logistical challenges can be both difficult and costly in conflict-affected states, it is the philosophical challenges (validation and targeting) which loom largest in M&E. Successfully gathering the correct data and subsequently interpreting them appropriately for evaluation purposes is a significant challenge.

In order to optimize validity, it is important to clearly define results and measurement strategies, offer training and supportive supervision to all staff, and work to ensure a three-point confirmation by engaging three separate teams (implementation; monitoring and evaluation; and quality assurance/quality control) on results to help manage bias and misinformation. Politics – both domestic and external - could easily affect project design and can often compromise projects either in the design or evaluation stage.

The difficulty of targeting begins with identifying the appropriate demographic for your M&E. The key demographic for counter insurgency (COIN) projects is young men aged 15 to 35. As with any COIN operation, keeping young men employed and giving them a stake in stability is valuable. Other targeting constraints include gender, proximity to kinetic activity, and scope of project activities.

It is often difficult to measure baselines and to avoid skewing final results as our efforts can irrevocably alter communities in unintended ways. It is also easy to miss the effect of variation in population and finally, although our goal is outcome-based systems, these systems are usually passed over for their output-based counterparts that make measuring and collecting data much easier, if arguably less meaningful.

Four primary lessons could be gleaned from IRD’s M&E experience in Afghanistan. First, a robust monitoring system is essential and can be accomplished by cross-checking through the use of three point collection, confirmation, and coordination. Second, the monitoring system must also be flexible. Third, local and international staff will have varying access. And finally, safety is more important than data.

Effective M&E in conflict-affected regions must, therefore, involve (a) measures to augment local capacity, (b) strategies to enhance multi-stakeholder coordination, (c) the creative use of technology to improve communication and data management and (d) appropriate standardization.