Thank you, Janet, for sharing such a critical and timely piece!
Cutting M&E during a funding crisis to save money is like throwing the ship’s radar overboard during a severe storm to lighten the load. You might keep afloat a few miles further today, but you guarantee steering straight into the rocks tomorrow.
I completely agree with your analysis, dropping M&E requirements when aid contracts creates a dangerous false economy. When evidence systems are dismantled, we don't just lose project indicators; we lose years of invested local capacity, community trust networks, and contextual intelligence. Without data, we are left counting immediate inputs while remaining blind to long-term impact, practically guaranteeing that costly implementation mistakes will be repeated in future cycles.
To break this cycle, we must advocate for radical prioritization rather than total abandonment. Donors must recognize that ring-fencing even 2% to 3% of reduced grant budgets for M&E is not administrative bloat, it is essential risk insurance to ensure scarce funds are not squandered. At the same time, implementers can transition to lean, localized mechanisms, such as Community-Led Monitoring, routine administrative data synthesis, and a strict core set of non-negotiable indicators. As you powerfully stated, limited funds make evidence more important, not less; we cannot afford to navigate these lean times completely blind.
RE: Evaluation under pressure : Strengthening evidence use, accountability and learning amidst funding constraints (Joint EvalforEarth-ALNAP discussion)
Zimbabwe
Wilbert Marimira
MEAL Specialist
CARE International
Posted on 13/10/2026
Thank you, Janet, for sharing such a critical and timely piece!
Cutting M&E during a funding crisis to save money is like throwing the ship’s radar overboard during a severe storm to lighten the load. You might keep afloat a few miles further today, but you guarantee steering straight into the rocks tomorrow.
I completely agree with your analysis, dropping M&E requirements when aid contracts creates a dangerous false economy. When evidence systems are dismantled, we don't just lose project indicators; we lose years of invested local capacity, community trust networks, and contextual intelligence. Without data, we are left counting immediate inputs while remaining blind to long-term impact, practically guaranteeing that costly implementation mistakes will be repeated in future cycles.
To break this cycle, we must advocate for radical prioritization rather than total abandonment. Donors must recognize that ring-fencing even 2% to 3% of reduced grant budgets for M&E is not administrative bloat, it is essential risk insurance to ensure scarce funds are not squandered. At the same time, implementers can transition to lean, localized mechanisms, such as Community-Led Monitoring, routine administrative data synthesis, and a strict core set of non-negotiable indicators. As you powerfully stated, limited funds make evidence more important, not less; we cannot afford to navigate these lean times completely blind.