Overview of M&E in FCV settings

Given the complexities and unique challenges of fragile, conflict-affected, and violent environments, understanding how monitoring and evaluation practices have evolved and how to adapt them is crucial.

This page introduces a number of key concepts, approaches and ideas that are important to be aware of and consider when conducting monitoring and evaluation in fragile, conflict-affected, and violent settings.

On this page:

• Evolution of M&E approaches in FCV settings
• Bunkerisation
• Complexity of FCV settings
• Monitoring in FCV settings
• National M&E systems and FCV settings

Evolution of M&E approaches in FCV settings

The field of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) in fragile, conflict-affected, and violent (FCV) settings has evolved over the past few decades, driven by the need to address the unique challenges these contexts present. Early frameworks like "Do No Harm" and "Peace and Conflict Impact Assessment (PCIA)" in the late 1990s laid the groundwork for understanding the impact of aid on conflict dynamics and minimising harm.

In the 2000s, approaches were refined with tools like the "Reflecting on Peace Practice Handbook" and "Designing for Results," which integrated M&E into conflict transformation activities and peacebuilding efforts. More recent innovations since 2010 have emphasised local perspectives and participatory methods, with approaches such as the "Everyday Peace Indicator Project" and "Grounded Accountability Model" focusing on ethics and accountability.

The field of evaluation in fragile, conflict-affected, and violent (FCV) settings has evolved significantly over the past few decades. Recognising the unique challenges and complexities of these contexts, practitioners and researchers have developed specific approaches to enhance the effectiveness and relevance of evaluation activities. These approaches aim to address the sensitive nature of conflict situations, assess both the intended and unintended impacts of interventions and provide meaningful insights for peacebuilding and development efforts.

Bunkerisation

'Bunkerisation' describes the practice of international humanitarian and development professionals operating from secure, fortified compounds or "green zones" in conflict-affected and fragile areas (Duffield, 2012). Although traditionally associated with active conflict (mid-FCV) and post-conflict (post-FCV) settings, this approach has become more common across a wider range of fragile settings, including those without active conflict, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic. In these contexts, local and international M&E staff often work remotely or from secured locations, sometimes entirely outside the FCV region.

While originally intended for physical protection, bunkerisation has extended beyond safety concerns to provide emotional and cultural support for aid workers in unfamiliar environments. However, this practice significantly impacts M&E processes. Limited direct access to project sites often necessitates reliance on local staff or third-party monitors, which can filter information and diminish firsthand understanding of the local context. The physical and social distance between international practitioners and local communities hampers the trust-building essential for effective M&E.

Additionally, the focus on security can lead to risk aversion, prioritising safety over in-depth engagement and potentially compromising the accuracy and depth of evaluation findings. The constant vigilance required in these settings also contributes to anxiety and burnout, further complicating the M&E process in fragile environments.

Complexity of FCV settings

Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) in FCV settings require adapting to unique and dynamic operational challenges. These environments resemble complex adaptive systems marked by non-linear dynamics, unpredictability, and interconnected factors that resist simple analysis. Fragile contexts often involve multiple layers of society, varied dynamics like violence or climate change, and intricate relationships among local, national, and international actors. Changes in one area can trigger widespread, unpredictable consequences, complicating M&E efforts.

Traditional linear evaluation approaches, which rely on straightforward causal logic and fixed indicators, often fall short in these settings. Instead, complexity-informed M&E embraces the dynamic nature of FCV environments, focusing on capturing emergent and unintended effects and recognising the diverse actors and factors at play. This approach prioritises learning and adaptation over rigid accountability, incorporating multiple stakeholder perspectives—particularly local voices—to understand the contested and evolving interpretations of change.

To navigate these complexities, M&E methods often include participatory techniques, such as causal mapping, and approaches like Outcome Harvesting, Most Significant Change, or process tracing, which do not depend on predefined theories of change. These methods offer a more differentiated understanding of how interventions interact with and influence complex social systems, acknowledging that isolating the effects of a single program is often unrealistic.

While each FCV setting presents unique challenges, one constant is the need for flexibility and responsiveness to change. This content aims to help practitioners adapt to the dynamic nature of FCV environments.

Monitoring in FCV settings

Monitoring in fragile, conflict-affected, and violent (FCV) settings requires flexible and context-sensitive approaches. Practitioners can choose from various monitoring types based on who conducts the monitoring, the focus of the monitoring, and the modality used. Depending on the specific FCV context, these approaches can be combined or adapted as needed. More information can be found on the monitoring thematic page.

Who does the monitoring

• Direct monitoring: Involves program staff directly collecting data on-site. While this provides valuable, firsthand insights, it is often limited by security risks and restricted access in FCV settings.
• Participatory monitoring: Engages local stakeholders and beneficiaries in the monitoring process, which supports conflict sensitivity, helps to build trust, and can strengthen local capacity. However, it requires careful facilitation to avoid reinforcing power imbalances and is not appropriate for situations where participation would cause risk to participants.
• Community-based monitoring: Empowers local communities to monitor project activities and outcomes. This approach promotes local ownership and can provide access to areas that are inaccessible to outsiders. However, careful consideration of community power dynamics and the safety of participants is required.
• Third-party monitoring: Involves external entities conducting monitoring activities, often in high-risk, inaccessible, or non-permissive areas, where the ability to safely and effectively operate or carry out required processes is constrained. This approach leverages local knowledge but requires careful vetting of partners to avoid exacerbating conflicts and attention to safety.

Focus of the monitoring

• Context monitoring: Systematically gathers information about external factors (PDF) relevant to strategy and operations, helping anticipate challenges like open conflicts or population displacements. This approach relies heavily on local insights and cultural understanding.
• Process or performance monitoring: Tracks the implementation of activities to ensure alignment with plans and identify bottlenecks. This monitoring can support frequent adjustments and adaptions as the context changes.
• Results-based monitoring: Results-based monitoring focuses on outcomes and impacts rather than inputs and outputs. This approach requires conflict-sensitive indicators and understanding how results may be influenced by the volatile context, as outlined in this UNDP resource on conflict sensitivity (PDF). However, this approach often overemphasises static, easily measurable, short-term outcomes at the expense of complex, long-term social changes (PDF). It requires careful adaptation to remain flexible and responsive to FCV dynamics. 
• Compliance monitoring: Ensures adherence to donor requirements and ethical standards, including conflict sensitivity principles and "do no harm" approaches. It can also encompass accountability to communities, ensuring that the needs and rights of local populations are respected and that their voices are considered in the evaluation process.
• Beneficiary monitoring: Collects feedback from those receiving services to assess satisfaction and impact. This can provide valuable insights into interactions between the intervention and conflict dynamics at the community level. This method requires conflict-sensitive approaches to ensure diverse voices are heard whilst ensuring safety.

Modality of monitoring

• Remote monitoring: Uses technology to collect data from a distance, which is crucial when physical presence is too dangerous. While it mitigates security risks, it may miss on-the-ground nuances and relies on access to technology and suitable infrastructure. Face-to-face or direct monitoring can provide more nuanced, firsthand data but may not be feasible in high-risk settings.
• Real-time monitoring: Involves continuous data collection and analysis for immediate feedback. This is essential for rapid adaptation in volatile environments but can be challenged by data reliability issues. The distinction between real-time monitoring and real-time evaluation is fluid, where real-time evaluation may not be based on monitoring or program data but still attempts to expedite the evaluation process for more responsive decision facilitation. Periodic monitoring, conducted at scheduled intervals, may be more appropriate when continuous data flow isn't possible or necessary, balancing real-time responsiveness with practicality. 
• Complexity-aware monitoring: Complexity aware monitoring recognises the unpredictable nature of FCV settings and complements traditional methods by capturing unintended outcomes and considering multiple non-linear pathways. It emphasises learning and adaptability over rigid frameworks. On the other hand, simple or linear monitoring approaches, which focus on predefined indicators and straightforward cause-effect relationships, may be easier to implement in stable or less dynamic situations but can miss emergent or unintended outcomes in complex environments. 

Monitoring in FCV settings benefits from integrating various monitoring methods and modalities to address the complexity, unpredictability and distinctness of these environments. Combining approaches like direct or participatory monitoring with remote methods can help ensure that data can still be collected when access or security is a concern. Blending real-time and periodic monitoring allows for responsiveness to urgent changes while maintaining practical data collection intervals when continuous monitoring isn't feasible. Complexity-aware monitoring further enhances this process by capturing unintended outcomes and adapting to non-linear dynamics. Combining different strategies can help monitoring efforts to remain both context-sensitive and effective.

National M&E systems and FCV settings

Key issues in National M&E systems in FCV settings

National monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) systems can be understood as a number of connected systems for generating and using evidence to inform decisions in the public sector. In fragile, conflict-affected, and violent (FCV) settings, these systems face significant challenges that undermine their effectiveness. The dynamic and unpredictable nature of these environments disrupts data collection and analysis, often resulting in incomplete or inaccurate data. For example, in Ukraine, frequent shifts in political and security conditions complicate the consistency of M&E activities, reducing the reliability of evaluations and evidence-based decision-making (Antoniv et al., 2022).

Another significant challenge is the lack of capacity within national institutions to manage M&E systems effectively. Many governments in FCV settings, such as the Palestinian Authority, have limited human resources and technical skills, which lead to heavy reliance on international donors, which can hinder the sustainability and local ownership of M&E initiatives (Rajab, 2021). High staff turnover and a lack of institutional memory exacerbate these issues, making it difficult to maintain continuity and build on past efforts. Conducting assessments, such as the Monitoring and Evaluation System Assessment (MESA), can provide valuable insights into existing capacity gaps and guide future capacity-building efforts.

Misalignment between donor-driven M&E frameworks and national priorities presents another critical barrier. In Palestine, for instance, multiple donor agencies operate parallel M&E systems with different indicators and reporting requirements, leading to confusion, inefficiency, and limited utility of M&E data for national planning (Rajab, 2021 (PDF)).

Securing funding for M&E initiatives in FCV contexts is particularly challenging. FCV settings often struggle to obtain support from development partners for strengthening national M&E systems, as donors often may prefer short-term humanitarian assistance due to the high risks, instability, and weak institutional capacity in these regions (GEI, 2023).

Key considerations for improving national M&E systems in FCV settings

To address these challenges, it is essential to start with an initial diagnostic assessment to identify existing capacity and prioritise areas for improvement. From this, a plan can be developed to guide the creation and strengthening of context-specific M&E structures, products, and processes. This includes creating flexible policies, guidelines, reporting systems, and training programs that are relevant to the specific context and can adapt to the volatile conditions of FCV settings – for example, utilising remote data collection techniques and building robust local networks can help maintain data flow even in insecure areas (Antoniv et al., 2022) or incorporating culturally relevant M&E methods into guidance (Ilic & Maetala, 2024).

Alternatively, a practical strategy could be to start with a single department or area, develop a workable M&E strategy, demonstrate success, and use this to inform broader scaling efforts. Once success has been demonstrated at a smaller scale, the diagnostic assessment can be used as a follow-up step to inform expansion and scaling of these efforts.

Building trust and local partnerships is crucial in FCV contexts, particularly for national M&E systems where political landscapes can be complex and fraught with tension. Establishing mutual understanding among stakeholders through informal, discreet conversations is essential in the initial stages of engagement. Prioritising key decision-makers early on can pave the way for broader successful engagement with others. Local partners such as evaluation associations can play a pivotal role in navigating these intricate political landscapes such as the Association Congolaise dd'Evaluation(ACE) partnering with CLEAR-FA. By leveraging their connections with government officials and donor partners, local partners can facilitate engagement, create opportunities for raising awareness, and ensure that national M&E systems are more effectively integrated and responsive to the needs of all stakeholders (GEI, 2023).

Capacity strengthening within national institutions is also key. This can be achieved in several ways, such as training opportunities, establishing dedicated M&E units with sufficient resources, and ongoing technical support from external partners. Efforts should focus on enhancing local staff skills and reducing dependency on external consultants to promote sustainability and local ownership (Rajab, 2021 (PDF)). In Afghanistan, for example, the Ministry of Economy has been developing national and sub-national M&E plans and tools to strengthen coordination and data management capabilities (Chaudhri et al., 2017).

Aligning donor and government M&E systems is critical to reducing duplication and ensuring that M&E data is relevant for national planning and decision-making. Developing common indicators, shared data platforms, and coordinated reporting mechanisms can facilitate this alignment. Establishing a legal and policy basis for M&E can provide a framework for clarity in roles and responsibilities (Rajab, 2021 (PDF)).

In FCV settings, where political sensitivities are high, the concept of "evaluation" must be framed as a tool for learning rather than strict accountability. Emphasising independence and avoiding political agendas can help build credibility and foster collaboration in strengthening national M&E systems (GEI, 2023).

Promoting the use of M&E data in decision-making processes is vital. This involves creating a culture of evidence-based decision-making within government institutions, ensuring that M&E findings are accessible to policymakers, and integrating M&E data into national planning and budgeting processes (Rajab, 2021 (PDF)).

For more information, visit BetterEvaluation's Strengthening National M&E Systems framework.