Measuring Risk, Vulnerability and Impact in Conflict: Doing Better Through Data Collaboration What is DFID doing in Afghanistan?

How the UK measures progress HMG Country Business Plan Afghanistan Key Performance Indicators Afghanistan Strand and Sub-Strand Strategies Strand Indicators, Milestones and Targets Projects and Programmes Project/Programme Indicators, Milestones and Targets

Key Performance Indicators A consistent set of 30 indicators that track Afghanistan’s progress and identify areas of concern: Security of the Afghan people A more transparent and accountable Government Fighting drugs and criminality Access to justice Creating sustainable jobs and income Improving lives of Helmandis Afghan’s ability to deliver services Community and Government led reintegration KPI’s utilise a wide range of data sources from CSO, International Security Assistance Force, EMIS, WB, UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, UN Office of Drugs and Crime

DFID quality investigation Datasets investigated in 2009/2010: –Education –Opinion polls: The Asia Foundation Survey, ISAF survey –GDP –CPI –Budget –NRVA –Population There are (relatively) good data in Afghanistan; we should maximise their use -Assess what data can be used for what purpose -Increase future data power -Improve dissemination and access to micro data

Strengthening the NSS CSO is on the right track and DFID is supporting its efforts -Afghanistan National Statistics Plan with five year action plan from Provide strategic and operational advice e.g., micro data access policy -Donor alignment and coordination -Statistics for Results Facility

Helmand Monitoring and Evaluation Programme Quantitative Research: Oct 10 (6 districts) Jan 11 (10 districts) Qualitative research: Jan 11 (6/8 districts) Output 1: Established baselines Output 1: Established baselines Output 2: Operational database and interactive geospatial facility Output 2: Operational database and interactive geospatial facility Oracle database Website and GIS Quarterly reports Data collection and representation Analytical reports Output 3: New knowledge and recommendations from HMEP reporting Output 3: New knowledge and recommendations from HMEP reporting Purpose: Stabilisation and development programmes in Helmand make more effective use of monitoring and evaluation tools

Data collaboration CSO – working with others to coordinate around the National Statistics Plan HMEP – using other data, harmonising survey questions, sharing HMEP data with others and disseminating widely DQA’s – sharing the findings to improve the use of data Collaboration with other donors, military and NGOs on data sources and information including how we report on progress e.g., through the Key Performance Indicators

DFID Afghanistan’s future plans Continue to support the strengthening of the National Statistical System Focus on evaluation, research and analytical work Better collaboration of all key stakeholders Further round of data quality assessments of key data sets Encouraging the better use of data through training and sharing of information.

Evaluation and research DFID has developed an Evaluation Action plan to strengthen our approach to M&E by: –improving M&E throughout the project cycle; –up-skilling staff in M&E tools and approaches; –providing more and dedicated programme resources to M&E, including recruiting an Evaluation Adviser to lead on this effort –encouraging an impact assessment of the multi-donor funded ARTF (total approx $1bn) –Up to 3% of programme costs will be set aside from the design phase for independent evaluation work when appropriate. DFID is conducting a research mapping to –identify the gaps in research and analysis –identify DFID’s comparative advantage in taking forward work to fill the gaps.

Issues for discussion How do we monitor the fiscal sustainability of Government? How do we measure whether Government is ready for transition including assessing Government’s capacity? How do we get meaningful population estimates and administrative boundaries when areas of the country cannot be accessed? How can we improve collaboration between different stakeholders both on inputs and outputs? Line Ministries and CSO? Donors? Other stakeholders? How do we improve data quality – timeliness, coverage, representativeness, etc? Can ariel technology be used to get better information about people’s lives? Qual and quan? Triangulation? Any other ideas? How can we ensure data are used responsibly? How can we improve our understanding of the impact of our interventions - causality/relational information is incomplete? How can actors coordinate to get a better overview?