Humanitarian organizations operate in increasingly complex and hazardous environments, particularly where armed conflict persists. Monitoring and evaluation serve as crucial functions to assess aid effectiveness, accountability, and equity. However, war zones introduce exceptional constraints that jeopardize the reliability, accessibility, and safety of monitoring efforts.
This article explores the multifaceted challenges encountered in the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of humanitarian interventions within war zones. Drawing upon diverse examples across global conflict settings -from Eastern DRC, South Sudan, Syria, Gaza to Ukraine- this analysis delineates ten persistent obstacles that inhibit accurate data collection, verification, and interpretation.
By unpacking these barriers, the article underscores the urgent need for adaptive methodologies, enhanced safeguards, and ethical considerations to ensure effective and accountable humanitarian programming in volatile contexts.
1. Insecurity and Lack of Access
Humanitarian monitoring in active conflict zones is often constrained by insecurity and physical inaccessibility. Armed clashes, aerial bombardments, and landmines pose direct threats to humanitarian staff, rendering entire regions unreachable. In Syria, for example, besieged areas like Eastern Ghouta have been consistently excluded from monitoring operations due to ongoing military actions (UNOCHA, 2020).
The inability to safely enter these zones results in reliance on second-hand reports, satellite imagery, or anecdotal evidence, all of which lack the reliability of on-site verification. Inaccessibility compromises accountability, as it becomes impossible to confirm whether aid actually reaches intended beneficiaries. Organizations may also withdraw personnel altogether, suspending operations and disrupting long-term data collection.
Furthermore, the psychological and operational toll on humanitarian teams intensifies when safety cannot be guaranteed. Many agencies must implement remote monitoring protocols or negotiate access with armed actors—strategies that are resource-intensive and often politically sensitive. The challenge calls for robust security frameworks and cross-sector coordination to balance risk mitigation with the imperative to deliver aid.
2. Disruption of Communication Infrastructure
Effective monitoring depends on timely communication between field staff, headquarters, and data analysts. However, conflict settings often involve deliberate or incidental destruction of telecommunications infrastructure. In Yemen, repeated airstrikes and sabotage have disabled major communication towers, leaving entire regions without internet or mobile connectivity (ReliefWeb, 2021).
The absence of real-time communication delays critical decision-making and impedes centralized reporting. Staff working in remote areas may be forced to carry physical records back to base, increasing both logistical burdens and data security risks. Moreover, such gaps hinder triangulation and verification processes, compromising the credibility of monitoring outcomes.
These disruptions have broader implications, limiting coordination with other NGOs and local actors. Humanitarian agencies may need to invest in alternative technologies such as satellite phones or offline data collection tools, which require training and increase operational complexity. The situation underscores the importance of communication resilience as part of humanitarian preparedness in fragile states.
3. Displacement of Populations
Mass displacement—whether gradual or sudden—presents a critical challenge in maintaining the validity of monitoring frameworks. In conflict-prone areas such as eastern DRC, militant attacks often force entire villages to flee overnight, rendering recently collected baseline data obsolete (UNHCR, 2019).
This fluidity undermines population-based sampling strategies, making it difficult to track aid beneficiaries longitudinally. The frequent relocation of people means that programs must continually recalibrate their target populations, which is both costly and technically demanding. Standard survey instruments, designed for static populations, fail to capture the reality of displaced communities.
Furthermore, displacement leads to logistical hurdles in delivering aid and collecting data. Mobile populations may settle in hard-to-reach areas or informal camps not covered by official registries. Monitoring teams must adopt flexible tracking mechanisms such as mobile surveys, community mapping, and adaptive sampling to ensure inclusion and equity.
4. Manipulation by Armed Groups
In highly militarized zones, humanitarian monitoring is frequently subject to manipulation or coercion by armed groups. These actors may seek to control the narrative surrounding aid or exploit humanitarian operations for political gain. For instance, in South Sudan, rebel factions have reportedly pressured local monitors to falsify data or barred access to certain territories (HRW, 2018).
Such interference distorts the integrity of monitoring results and undermines trust between humanitarian agencies and the affected populations. Falsified data can lead to misallocation of resources, underreporting of violations, and flawed program evaluations. Armed actors may also use aid access as leverage to consolidate control over contested areas.
To counteract these pressures, agencies must strengthen ethical protocols, incorporate cross-validation methods, and advocate for unimpeded access through diplomatic channels. External oversight from neutral institutions and third-party verification systems can help reduce the risks posed by armed interference, though such mechanisms are themselves vulnerable to political tensions.
5. Lack of Independent Monitoring
Independent oversight is a cornerstone of credible humanitarian evaluation, yet war zones often restrict access to external actors. Under Taliban control in Afghanistan, for example, international monitors have been excluded, forcing NGOs to rely on community-based staff who face social and political pressures (ICRC, 2022).
Local monitors, while invaluable, may struggle to maintain impartiality in polarized environments. Their proximity to stakeholders and vulnerability to local dynamics increase the potential for bias or selective reporting. Furthermore, reliance on local networks risks excluding marginalized groups who may not be represented within dominant community structures.
Agencies must invest in rigorous training, safeguard protocols, and triangulated data collection to mitigate these risks. Collaborations with academia or media watchdogs can bolster transparency. Ultimately, the absence of independent verification highlights the need for innovative, context-sensitive approaches to ensure accountability without compromising safety.
6. Mistrust and Safety Concerns for Local Staff
Local staff in conflict zones often face suspicion, harassment, or violence due to perceived affiliations with political or foreign entities. In Ethiopia’s Tigray region, humanitarian monitors have experienced arrest and intimidation by regional forces, significantly obstructing data collection activities (Amnesty International, 2021).
Such hostility breeds mistrust between communities and monitoring personnel. Residents may fear retaliation for participating in surveys or view monitors as agents of external influence. This environment compromises data validity and reduces the willingness of respondents to provide truthful or complete information.
Organizations must prioritize staff safety through psychological support, protective protocols, and community engagement efforts that build trust and foster transparency. Developing localized ethical standards and engaging with community leaders can mitigate threats and improve monitoring acceptance across diverse sociopolitical landscapes.
7. Data Reliability and Verification Issues
In war-affected regions, the quality of monitoring data is frequently compromised by misinformation, duplication, or fabrication. Beneficiaries may exaggerate their needs or misreport identities to increase their chances of receiving aid. For example, in northern Nigeria, double registration and false data submissions are common due to poverty and fear of exclusion (FEWS NET, 2020).
Such distortions pose significant obstacles for outcome analysis and program design. They can result in inflated resource requirements and obscure the actual impact of interventions. Additionally, field staff may inadvertently collect flawed data due to language barriers, stress, or inadequate training.
To improve reliability, humanitarian actors should employ multiple data sources, conduct random spot checks, and use digital verification methods such as biometric registration or GPS-tagged surveys. These techniques reduce the risk of manipulation and enhance confidence in aid programming, though they also introduce concerns around data privacy and consent.
8. Logistical and Transportation Barriers
Poor infrastructure and restricted mobility are inherent to most conflict zones. Destroyed roads, fuel shortages, and checkpoints severely hinder field access and delay monitoring. In Gaza, for instance, Israeli airstrikes have obliterated key routes while political checkpoints add layers of complexity to movement (Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, 2022).
These obstacles not only delay delivery but also isolate field teams, increasing the likelihood of missed deadlines and lost data. Supply chains may be interrupted and monitoring tools -such as tablets, forms, or medical kits- may fail to reach evaluators in time. Planning site visits thus becomes a logistical gamble, further impeding consistency.
Humanitarian organizations must develop contingency plans and explore alternative transportation methods such as drone-based deliveries or local supply mobilization. Flexible logistics strategies and inter-agency partnerships can help overcome barriers, yet long-term solutions remain elusive without sustained political engagement and infrastructure investment.
9. Ethical Dilemmas in Data Collection
Collecting data in war zones entails grave ethical concerns. Surveys may inadvertently expose respondents to risks, especially when addressing sensitive topics. In Myanmar, questions related to ethnicity or displacement have triggered surveillance and violence against participants (Fortify Rights, 2021).
These risks necessitate a reevaluation of standard data collection practices. Tools must be anonymized, questions adapted, and consent processes rigorously observed. Field staff should be trained to recognize trauma and practice non-invasive interviewing techniques that minimize harm.
Institutional ethics boards and context-specific guidelines play a crucial role in governing humanitarian monitoring. Balancing the need for accurate data with respondent safety is a delicate endeavor, requiring constant reflection and adaptability. Ethical vigilance ensures dignity and safeguards the very populations humanitarian efforts aim to protect.
10. Rapidly Changing Contexts
Conflict environments are dynamic and unpredictable, often rendering monitoring frameworks obsolete within weeks or even days. In Ukraine, for instance, shifting frontlines have turned previously safe zones into battlefields overnight, disrupting planned field missions and altering beneficiary demographics (UNHCR, 2023).
Such volatility demands agile monitoring systems capable of real-time adjustment. Static tools and rigid sampling frames cannot cope with the pace of change, leading to skewed data and irrelevant findings. Continuous environmental scanning and scenario planning are critical to maintaining operational relevance.
Humanitarian organizations must embrace innovation, including mobile apps, satellite imagery, and localized dashboards to track developments and adapt metrics accordingly. Integrating conflict-sensitive design into M&E strategies is no longer optional, it is a requisite for credible and effective humanitarian action in war-affected regions
Overall, the integrity and efficacy of monitoring humanitarian initiatives in war zones are deeply contingent on the ability to navigate these pervasive challenges. As conflicts become increasingly protracted and fragmented, humanitarian actors must invest in flexible data systems, risk mitigation strategies, and ethical oversight. Fostering resilient monitoring frameworks is not only a logistical imperative but a moral one, ensuring that aid reaches those in need while upholding transparency and human dignity.