Challenges of doing M&E in FCV settings

Monitoring and evaluation in fragile, conflict-affected, and violent settings face significant challenges across logistical, ethical, methodological, and political dimensions.

These environments are unpredictable, with limited access, scarce resources, and safety concerns often complicating data collection. Additionally, evaluators must navigate cultural sensitivities, power imbalances, and unreliable data, all while working under time pressure and in dynamic, high-risk conditions. This section outlines key challenges affecting monitoring and evaluation (M&E) in these contexts.

On this page:

• Logistical challenges
• Ethical challenges
• Methodological challenges
• Political challenges

Logistical challenges

Logistical challenges in fragile, conflict-affected, and violent (FCV) settings are significant and multifaceted. These environments are dynamic and unpredictable, with sudden shifts in violence, control, or weather conditions often disrupting planned timelines and methodologies. Safety and security concerns are paramount, as M&E teams frequently operate in dangerous environments where armed conflict, landmines, and general lawlessness pose serious risks to physical safety. Additionally, access to remote and conflict-affected areas is often severely limited by political and security restrictions, poor infrastructure, and hazardous conditions, delaying data collection and restricting the scope of evaluations.

Another major challenge is the gap in evaluation capacity. FCV settings often lack local personnel with the necessary M&E skills, leading to a reliance on external professionals who may not have the context-specific knowledge required for effective evaluation. Compounding these issues are the short timelines often accompanying interventions in FCV settings, necessitating quick evaluations that can compromise the depth and quality of findings. Moreover, M&E systems and infrastructure in these areas are often underdeveloped or disrupted, with basic tools and reporting mechanisms often lacking or in disarray.

Fear and lack of trust among local communities further complicate M&E processes. In conflict-affected settings, fear and suspicion can hinder community engagement, making data collection challenging. Finally, the scarcity of financial, technological, and human resources in FCV settings limits the ability to conduct comprehensive evaluations, often forcing evaluators to make difficult trade-offs in their approaches.

Ethical challenges

Ethical challenges for M&E in these settings are multifaceted and require careful consideration. Managing data responsibly is crucial due to the sensitivity of information related to conflict and violence. Evaluations that do not consider the cultural context can lead to misinterpretations and biases, while participation in M&E activities can expose individuals to risks, including physical harm and psychological distress. Additionally, the power imbalance between evaluators and communities can influence the evaluation process, potentially marginalising the voices of those most affected.

Methodological challenges

One of the main methodological challenges for M&E in FCV settings is the need for more reliable data; inconsistent and incomplete information is common, making accurate evaluations difficult. Additionally, data collected in FCV contexts is often biased due to political influences, security concerns, and social dynamics, which can skew results and limit the validity of findings.

Technological limitations add another layer of bias, as restricted access to technology and unreliable connectivity can result in data that does not accurately represent the broader population. Moreover, evaluations designed with a one-size-fits-all approach often fail to account for the unique complexities of FCV settings, leading to a mismatch between the evaluation’s purpose and the reality on the ground. The lack of FCV-specific M&E guidance, tools, and frameworks makes it harder to develop an appropriate design.

Conceptual ambiguity also presents a methodological challenge, as unclear definitions and concepts in M&E within FCV settings can lead to misunderstandings and inconsistencies in evaluation practices. The complex and dynamic nature of FCV settings further complicates the design and implementation of evaluations, as these environments are inherently unpredictable and difficult to capture accurately. Furthermore, the lack of a robust evidence base in many FCV settings hinders the development of effective evaluation strategies, leaving evaluators without reliable information to inform their approaches.

Political challenges

Several political challenges complicate the process of conducting monitoring and evaluation (M&E) in fragile, conflict-affected, and violent (FCV) settings. Political instability, marked by frequent government changes and ongoing conflict, makes maintaining consistent and reliable M&E efforts difficult. Conflicts among stakeholders with differing interests and priorities further complicate collaboration and the alignment of evaluation objectives. Additionally, limited government support, whether due to lack of resources, capacity, or political will, hinders the effectiveness of M&E activities. Bureaucracy and corruption often exacerbate these challenges, slowing down and undermining the integrity of evaluations. Without strong political commitment, the impact of M&E efforts is greatly diminished, as power dynamics in FCV settings allow influential actors to shape the evaluation process to serve their interests, often at the expense of less powerful stakeholders.

The next section focuses on how to address these challenges.