livelihood m & e

8/4/2019 Livelihood M & E

1/23

Tools for Sustainable Livelihoods:

Livelihoods Monitoring and Evaluation

Kath Pasteur

IDS

21st February 2001

DRAFT FOR COMMENTS

Table of contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................1

1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................1

2. WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF LIVELIHOODS MONITORING

AND EVALUATION?..........................................................................................2

2.1 TAKINGABROAD SL FOCUS..................................................................................3

2.2 THE SL PRINCIPLES.............................................................................................4

2.2.1 People centred and participatory.............................................................42.2.2 Holistic and cross-sectoral,.....................................................................52.2.3 Linking micro to macro............................................................................52.2.4 Dynamic and Sustainable.........................................................................6

2.2.5 Support a process, learning approach...................................................62.3 THE SL FRAMEWORK...........................................................................................6

3. HOW DO I IMPLEMENT A LIVELIHOODS APPROACH TO M&E?....9

3.1 HOWDOESLIVELIHOODS M&E FITINTHEPROJECTCYCLE?.......................................9

3.2 HOWDOESLIVELIHOODS M&E RELATETOTHE LOGICAL FRAMEWORK?....................11

3.3 WHATINSTITUTIONALARRANGEMENTSSUPPORT LIVELIHOODS M&E?.......................13

3.4 WHATMETHODSAREAPPROPRIATEFORLIVELIHOODS M&E?..................................14

3.6 HOWSHOULD I DESIGN LIVELIHOODS INDICATORS?.................................................17

3.7 HOWCAN LIVELIHOODS M&E DATABEANALYSED?..............................................20

3.8 WHATARETHE COSTSAND BENEFITSOF LIVELIHOODS M&E?...............................21

3.9 SUMMARY.........................................................................................................22

4. LINKS TO FURTHER INFORMATION ONLINE....................................23

1. Introduction

Are DFID projects, programmes or country strategies having a sustainable and long

term impact on improving the livelihoods of poor people? Whether or not projects have

been designed using a livelihoods approach, the Sustainable Livelihoods framework and

principles offer a useful tool and guide for measuring and interpreting the outcomes and

impacts of development activities. Livelihoods M&E can also help to improve our

understanding of the Sustainable Livelihoods approach as an effective development process

1


2/23

for achieving poverty reduction.

A Livelihoods approach takes a holistic view of tackling poverty, and puts poor

people and their priorities at the centre of development. The Sustainable Livelihoods

Framework and principles are tools to guide our understanding and practice when planning

and implementing development activities. Livelihoods Monitoring and Evaluation

(Livelihoods M&E) draws on the best practice of conventional M&E and Participatory

M&E, but the focus, principles and framework of the Sustainable Livelihoods (SL)

approach add further value and insights.

Livelihoods M&E is still in a process of evolution and experimentation. This tool draws on

some early experience and conceptual thinking and outlines the added value that a

Livelihoods approach brings to M&E. It is written primarily for DFID staff and partners,

but it is hoped will also be of relevance to a much wider audience.

Three key features of the Sustainable Livelihoods approach help to provide further insight,

and improve on the focus, priorities and methods of conventional styles of M&E:

1) Its broad focus highlights not just project impacts, but wider livelihoods goals;

2) The livelihoods principles form the basis for innovative methodologies;

3) The livelihoods frameworkhelps with the design of better oriented and more relevant

indicators.

Hence, livelihoods M&E outputs will differ from those of conventional M&E in a

number of ways. They provide a broader, more dynamic view of project impacts throughout

the project lifetime, rather than a one-off, ex poste assessment. They try to link the context

with the outcomes and impacts helping to explain why and how. Instead of policing,

Livelihoods M&E builds a culture of learning and reflecting, and aims to provide relevant

information for planning and policy-making.

Section 2 of this tool outlines the conceptual features that characterise a Livelihoods

approach to M&E, whilst Section 3 details the practical implications of this new thinking in

terms of planning and implementation of Livelihoods M&E.

2. What are the Characteristics of Livelihoods Monitoring and Evaluation?


3/23

This section looks at the ways in which the focus, principles and framework of the

Sustainable Livelihoods approach are relevant to Monitoring and Evaluation, and can be

translated into an improved approach to M&E.

2.1 Taking a broad SL focus

A Sustainable Livelihoods approach to development demands a more holistic

understanding of poverty, and of the linkages between different livelihoods components.

The goals of livelihoods projects tend to have a broader scope, beyond a narrow focus on

the direct outcomes of project or programme activities within a particular sector. Hence,

Livelihoods M&E should aim to assess the bigger picture of livelihoods beyond the

project environment, and the links between different aspects of the livelihoods context.

Three forms of M&E can be identified: process, outcome and impact (see table

below). Livelihoods M&E addresses all three, but places greater emphasis on the third. It

furthermore tries to test the assumption that project processes and outcomes will result in

the achievement of intended impacts or livelihoods goals.

Table 1. Process, outcome and impact M&E.

Process: monitoring the

implementation of activities and how

effectively this is done, i.e. the project

strategy, work styles, management

arrangements, etc.

Did the project process achieve the

intended outcomes? Did it incorporate

the SL principles? Was the SL

framework an effective tool for planning

appropriate activities?

Outcome: measuring the effect of the

activities that have been undertaken,and their progress towards achieving

the project purpose.

Do the outcomes correspond to the needs

identified in the SL analysis? Are they

cross-cutting (including technical, social,human, financial)?

Impact: ascertaining the longer term

and more widespread, intended and

unintended, consequences of an

intervention, and monitoring progress

towards broader livelihoods goals.

Has the project resulted in peoples

access to a greater and more balanced

range of livelihood assets? Has itreduced vulnerability and improved

livelihood outcomes? Has there been a

beneficial policy impact?

Livelihoods M&E can be used to monitor and evaluate the impact of an individual

3


4/23

project, a sector wide programme, or a country strategy. Ideally nested systems of M&E at

these different levels can provide opportunities for making additional linkages and building

a broad and comprehensive picture of how livelihoods are being impacted for poverty

reduction.

2.2 The SL Principles

The principles of the SL approach demand a shift in focus from outputs to people,

and an exploration of poor peoples own priorities. The SL approach poses the challenge of

how to incorporate these principles into an M&E methodology. The implications of the

principles outlined in the table below are further elaborated in this section.

Table 2. The implications of the SL principles for Livelihoods M&E

Principle Implication

People-centred and

participatory

Poor people are the central focus

Involvement of a wider range of beneficiaries

Holistic and cross-

sectoral

Study changes across a range of livelihoods aspects

Linking micro to macro Study impacts at different levels both local and

policy - and the links between themDynamic and sustainable Ensure that the dynamic and fluctuating nature of

livelihoods is reflected

Long term viability of interventions and sustainability

Support a process,

learning approach

Not just for project learning but for policy input wider

understanding of resource allocation processes

(reword)

Capacity building such that learning continues beyondthe donor involvement

2.2.1 People centred and participatory

The Sustainable Livelihoods approach focuses on development activities that are based

on the priorities of poor people. For such an approach to be effective poor people

themselves must play a key role in identifying and addressing those priorities. Thus,

Livelihoods M&E should be:

People-centred i.e. focus on evaluating whether the livelihoods of the poor are beingaddressed

Participatory i.e. ensure that poor people are key stakeholders in the M&E process.


5/23

Rather than concentrating on resources, or income-based project outputs, a people-

centred approach centres on peoples lives and their own understandings of poverty and

wellbeing. It recognises also that poor people are not homogeneous, and will not all benefit

equally from project interventions.

More participatory styles of M&E embrace a range of stakeholder perceptions, they

encourage a joint analysis of lessons, and they improve learning within partner

organisations, and amongst the project beneficiaries themselves. Participatory approaches

should exhibit the following characteristics:

The M&E process is designed and managed with partners and beneficiaries;

Indicators are identified and negotiated with partners and beneficiaries;

Partners and beneficiaries are involved in the collection and analysis of information;

Peoples attitudes to change are as important as physical measures of change;

Partners and beneficiaries play a key role in judging performance.1

2.2.2 Holistic and cross-sectoral,

Taking an holistic and cross-sectoral approach requires looking beyond the direct outcomes

of a project in a particular sector to embrace a wider range of livelihoods impacts: on

different assets, on vulnerability and on livelihoods strategies. This may require collection

of a range of economic, physical, social and financial data. The unintended, unexpected and

intangible impacts are also relevant to Livelihoods M&E. This doesn't mean however that

all data on all things is required, but that preliminary data on a wider range of

complimentary factors should be sought before prioritising a smaller number of significant

factors for more in depth analysis.

2.2.3 Linking micro to macro

Many projects and programmes now recognise that changes at the local level are not

sufficient to ensure sustainable improvements in livelihoods, and thus they are increasingly

engaging in policy and institutional issues. Livelihoods M&E should aim to understand the

actions and impacts not only at the local level, but also at the national or policy level, and

the linkages between them. This involves looking beyond the household, to impacts in the

1 Blake, B et al (2000) West Africa Sustainable Fisheries Livelihoods: Guidelines for Programme and Project Monitoringand Evaluation. NRI for DFID.

5


6/23

organisational environment (e.g. organisational capability, and culture), and at the broader

societal level (e.g. impacts on societal values and attitudes; on the policy and institutional

environment).

2.2.4 Dynamic and Sustainable

Livelihoods are dynamic and influenced by seasonal and other trends. It is important

that the dynamism of livelihoods is captured in Livelihoods M&E by looking at

vulnerability, trends and changes over time in relation to the context, rather than just

livelihood status. This also has implications for understanding the sustainability aspects of

interventions, not just ecologically, but institutionally, socially and economically. Possible

knock-on impacts (negative and positive) on non-beneficiaries, or in other geographical

locations elsewhere should be explored; or, for example, the long-term sustainability of

positive trends within given resource constraints.

2.2.5 Support a process, learning approach

Traditionally M&E has primarily been about providing accountability to funders and

assessing the achievement of project outcomes. However, Livelihoods M&E can make a

further contribution to the development process by building capacity for ongoing learning

beyond the life of the project, and for producing information that provides a useful input

into current and future planning, policy making and other resource allocation decisions.

Hence, emphasis must shift from producing knowledge products (reports of

process and output indicators), to a goal of strengthening the learning process.

Establishing a learning process requires building the capacity of individuals, and

institutionalising a culture within organisations for reflecting, learning, communicating and

applying knowledge, (i.e. adapting in response to lessons learned). In this way M&E can be

an empowering process, facilitating dialogue and mutual learning, and building trust and

transparency between project partners.

2.3 The SL Framework

The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework presents the main factors that affect

peoples livelihoods, and typical relationships between these. It provides a way of thinking

through different influences (constraints and opportunities) on livelihoods, and ensuring


7/23

that important factors are not neglected.

In particular, the framework:

Provides a checklist of the important issues and sketches out the way these like to one

another

Draws attention to core influences and processes; and

Emphasises the multiple interaction between the various factors which affect

livelihoods2

Hence, the framework can be also used as a tool for designing Livelihoods Monitoring

and Evaluation: as a conceptual framework for identifying influences and interactions; as a

checklist for designing indicators; and as an aid to analysing, understanding and

structuring M&E data.

As a conceptual framework the SL framework draws attention to the need to measure

changes in the different factors that contribute to livelihoods:

Changes in capital assets

Changes in institutional structures and processes

Changes in the resilience or vulnerability of livelihoods

Changes in livelihood strategies Changes in livelihood outcomes

It also draws attention to the relationships and feedback loops between these different

elements, and between macro- and micro-level changes such as:

Relationships between policies, institutions and processes (PIPs) and the vulnerability

context.

Relationships between access to assets and improved livelihood outcomes.

Relationships between national policy or institutional decisions and household level

activities.

Hence, indicators can be designed either for measuring positive or negative changes in

access to assets, institutional structures and relationships, or livelihoods strategies. Or they

may be designed to try and determine linkages between different aspects of change.

Whichever of these aims the Livelihoods indicators aim to fulfil, they should share a

number of characteristics, that help them to provide the quality and type of information

2 Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets (www.livelihoods.org)

7


8/23

needed for Livelihoods M&E:

Box 1. Characteristics of livelihoods indicators3

more outcome focused - address the wider aspects of peoples livelihoods and

recognise that outcomes are diverse and go beyond simple quantitativeincreases in the variable being measured.

more process based - as well as seeking to understand the outcomes people

seek and achieve, they should look at the quality of the processes by whichthese outcomes are, or are not reached.

more negotiable and open-ended to take account of diverse unpredicted

outcomes; different peoples interpretations of success and understandings of

impact.

looking at intermediate signals - this dynamism in peoples lives necessitates

the use of proxy signals so that interim results and changes can be tracked;

looking at negative trendsas well as positive trends - understanding whatwent wrong as well as right is important;

more context dependent - comparing the effectiveness across projects or

programmes in contributing to sustainable improvements in livelihoods is

difficult when measures of success differ.

3 Source: Drake, L. (2000) Scoping mission to investigate the development of Livelihoods Indicators and LivelihoodsMonitoring systems for DFID-Bangladesh.


9/23

3. How do I implement a Livelihoods approach to M&E?

This section looks at some of the practical implications of Livelihoods M&E with respect to

its place in the project cycle and the logical framework, methods, and issues of

organisational structure.

3.1 How does livelihoods M&E fit in the project cycle?

As already mentioned, Livelihoods M&E can take place at the project, the programme and

the country strategy level. Figure 1. illustrates how Livelihoods M&E activities fit in to the

project cycle. The basic principles of this process hold also for programme and strategy

planning, i.e. that monitoring should be seen as an iterative, learning process, with constant

feedback loops correcting implementation and operation, as well as lessons feeding back to

the design stage of new projects or programmes under identification.

Information and lessons generated at both the monitoring, as well as the evaluation stages

should be made available to the range of stakeholders involved in the project through

appropriate events (e.g. workshops) or media (e.g. posters, video). Sharing of lessons can

also take place between sectors, programmes, and even countries.

What this figure does not clearly illustrate is that Livelihoods M&E is not intended as

something that only feeds into the project cycle. Its goals should stretch beyond the project

time frame, aiming to build capacity for continuous learning and the creating of relevant

information for policy and planning decision. It should also stretch beyond project

boundaries, and seek to understand the wider livelihoods context and trends.

Figure 1. Livelihoods M&E in the Project Cycle

9


10/23


11/23

impact indicators, the project purpose through the outcome indicators, and the project

outputs through process indicators.

3.2 How does livelihoods M&E relate to the Logical Framework?

Logframes are often associated with blueprint projects. However, their widespread use

means that monitoring activities increasingly have to be structured in this format. In trying

to incorporate Livelihoods M&E in a project logframe, it is necessary to take a process

approach, i.e. indicators and means of verification should be flexible and updated frequently

to incorporate any process changes.

The design of the M&E methodology and the writing of the Logical Framework should

ideally be done in tandem since the identification of indicators and their means of

verification are common to both these activities. A Livelihoods approach may be

considered to differ from a conventional approach in that the goal will tend to be a broad

livelihoods goal, and Livelihoods M&E is significant in that it aims to ascertain progress

towards such broader goals through impact indicators. Livelihoods M&E also measures the

achievement of the project purpose through the outcome indicators, and the project outputs

through process indicators.

The logframe often only outlines a limited number of broad indicators and the means of

verification often only refers to sources of verification rather than the methods and tools

used. Identification of more detailed indicators, and a range of methods for their verificationshould nonetheless be decided upon during the design phase or once an M&E unit or team

has been established early in the implementation phase (see sections below).

The following table summarises parts of the logframe for a Livelihoods project in Andhra

Pradesh, India. It illustrates examples of indicators and means of verification including a

Project Monitoring and Impact Assessment System. The indicators address impact on a

range of assets (e.g. increased income, increased spending on health and education, capacity

building), on vulnerability (to drought), on the policy making environment, and on peoples

capacity to access to institutions and processes. The feedback and dissemination of M&E

findings is made explicit, and will be done by means of a communications strategy andother lesson learning events.

11


12/23

Table 3. M&E in the logframe: from the Andhra Pradesh Rural Livelihoods Project4

Narrative Summary Objectively Verifiable

Indicators

Means of Verification

Goal

Effective and

sustainable

approaches to

eliminate poverty

adopted in drought-

prone areas of

Andhra Pradesh

Population below the official

poverty line falls by 30% by

EOP in project districts

New government guidelines

and schemes which improve

the delivery of services

through participation, equity

and convergence adopted

Government of Andhra

Pradesh (GoAP) below

Poverty Line Surveys

Policy documents and

scheme guidelines;

stakeholder workshops and

other lesson learning events

Purpose

Government of

Andhra Pradesh ableto comprehensively

implement pro-poor

watershed-based

sustainable rural

livelihoods

approaches in five

districts of Andhra

Pradesh

X% of below poverty line

households can specify at

least y% increase in incomesas a result of project

interventions by EOP

70% of marginal farmers

report significantly improved

drought proofing.

GoAP develops and

implements a Capacity

Building strategy onwatershed based SRL agenda

for the whole state by EOP.

Communities, particularly

Schedule Caste/Tribe groups,

have greater capacity to take

up, participate in and

influence Government

services.

Stakeholder workshops at

PY2 and annual reviews in

PY 4, 5, and 7.

Project monitoring and

impact assessment system

developed in PY1.

Participatory approaches to

PMIAS developed using

PRA case studies, small

scale sample surveys using

special focus groups

identified by stakeholderanalysis against which to

report distributional issues.

Component 1: Watershed-plus based sustainable rural livelihood initiatives2. Higher return

income and

employment options

(both land-based and

non-land-based)

identified and

pursued through

Livelihood options of the

poorest common interest

groups have been adequately

represented in microplans.

Expenditure on food, health

care, education and shelter by

Project monitoring and

impact assessment system

(PMIAS) developed in

PY1. As above.

Regular project monitoring

data collection on quarterly

4 Source: Adapted from APRLP Logical Framework 1999-2006. APRLP is a Sustainable Livelihoods project that useswatershed management as its entry point. This table has selected a limited number of elements from the completelogframe in order to illustrate impact and output indicators, and a range of participatory and conventional sources ofverification.


13/23

increased access to

Government and

other

initiatives/schemes by

the poorest in the

watershed

programme in 500

watersheds.

landless and marginal

farmers increased and

sustained by EOP.

Increased and successful

access to a range of GoAP

poverty alleviation schemes

by Below Poverty Line

households, particularly

SC/ST and female headed

households, (at least X%) by

PY2.

and six monthly basis

Reviews of micro-plans by

MDTs, DPAP and DCBC,

PIAs and village based

workshops with village

professionals, SHGs, user

groups and other WDA

members.

Component 4: Lesson Learning and policy influence

6. Approaches

developed in the

project, particularly

on non-land-based

initiatives and other

aspects of watershed

plus, replicated

widely.

Participatory M&E, impact

assessment and planning

approaches developed and

informing development of

project approaches by PY2.

Key lessons and approaches

from the project adopted by

GoAP in the entire State.

Project experience

documented and

disseminated to allstakeholders using

appropriate media

DPAP/PSU annual reports,

policy specific studies and

documentation, stakeholder

workshops, feedback

through communications

strategy development and

dissemination events.

7. The sectoral policy

environment in AP

strengthened to

ensure greater (&

sustainable) impact

for women and the

poorest and more

effective working partnerships between

Government and

NGOs

GoAP makes policy changes

through appropriate

instruments in relation to

issues which impact on the

poor

Mechanisms for identifying

such issues, and taking policydecisions in relation to them

established.

GoAP orders/ circulars and

documents charting

progress of Watershed

Development Programme

Stakeholder workshops,

participatory monitoring

and evaluation systemfeedback

3.3 What institutional arrangements support Livelihoods M&E?

Styles of monitoring that involve occasional visits to project sites by consultants or project

managers, verbal feedback from field supervisors, or reviewing documentation are limited

in the extent to which they get a true picture of what is happening on the ground. If

systematic and continuous and participatory monitoring and evaluation is to be carried outduring project implementation, and to be sustained throughout operation, then dedicated

staff and resources need to be made available for this task.

13


14/23

Livelihoods Unit

Project M&E

Sector

BGE, Go-interfish and other projects

DFID place country-regionBangladesh

Steering Group

Co-management teamCARE-DFID

lace country-regionBangladeshField Management Staff

NR/FAR advisors

One option is to designate an M&E unit or team, i.e. a distinct administrative entity. Its

location may be within the project management unit, with a partner organisation involved in

the project (e.g. NGO, research institute), or within the department or ministry if they are

the implementing agency. There may be M&E units at each of the following levels:

Project: limited to M&E of one or more projects

Programme: M&E of all projects under in one sectoral or area based programme.

Central: M&E of a country programmes progress towards achieving its broader goals.

The proposed institutional arrangement for the Bangladesh Livelihoods monitoring system

of DFID and CARE-B provides an illustration of one possible model.

Box 2. Organisational structure of Bangladesh Livelihoods Monitoring System5

The long-term institutional management and implementation arrangements for the

LMS are still under discussion. The following factors are being considered in

deciding institutional arrangements:

- Objectivity - Sustainability

- Cost - Ownership Compatibility with existing institutional

structures

- Ownership - Consistent/supportive of the wider agenda

The establishment of a livelihoods monitoring unit within CARE is the most likely

institutional option. This unit would be managed by a co-management team

supported by a steering group, and would sit above the two projects. The unit

would be staffed by 2 to 3 people with a strong background in rural development,participatory methodologies and monitoring and evaluation skills

The responsibility of an M&E unit will be: design and organisation of the M&E system;training of staff and others involved; organisation of data collection; co-ordination of data

analysis; and presentation and feedback of information. It may consist of anything from just

one or two part-time staff, to a full team of professionals, however it is important that a

range of relevant stakeholders are involved at all stages, and that long term personnel are

involved and trained to ensure sustainability.

3.4 What methods are appropriate for Livelihoods M&E?

Livelihoods M&E should be people-centred and participatory, thus it should involve a wide

5 Turton, C. with K. Westley and J. Goulden (2000) Bangladesh: Design of a Livelihood Monitoring System. InDevelopment Ltd. for DFID


15/23

range of stakeholders, and draw principally on participatory methods. A complementary

balance of both qualitative and quantitative research approaches should be employed.

Participatory methods are more effective in identifying intangible outcomes and unforeseen

impacts, and can help to give voice to those who are often invisible or ignored, and

providing opportunities for discussion and analysis amongst beneficiaries. They have the

added benefit of strengthening the capacity of individuals and organisations to have more

control in the development process. Some participatory methods used for various aspects of

Livelihoods monitoring of wildlife projects in East Africa are listed in Table 46. The design

of innovative and culturally appropriate methods is encouraged, for instance involving

video, photography, dance or drama.

Conventional methods have the advantage of generally requiring less time and commitment

of both M&E staff and beneficiaries. They can be more effective in gaining a picture of the

wider context, and are considered to be more objective. Some conventional methods may

involve the use of technical equipment, such as remote sensing, geographic information

systems, etc., which can be highly effective for monitoring impacts (e.g. in vegetation

cover, flooding) over time, but can have significant cost implications.

6 Ashley, C and K. Hussein (2000) Developing Methodologies for Livelihood Impact Assessment: Experience of theAfrican Wildlife Foundation in East Africa. ODI Working Paper 129.

15


16/23

Table 4 Topics and PRA-type tools for livelihood impact assessment7.

Topics Activities What can be learned

Current

livelihood

activites

List pros and cons Livelihood strategies. Criteria for

judging

Rank according to:- Contribution to income

- Preference

- Importance to HH. Discuss.

Key activities and assets. Ball parkfigures for income from different

activities. Values other than cash

income. Criteria can then be

discussed/expanded/ranked.

Generate criteria for scoringactivities and construct matrix

As above but more complex. Focuses

on locally-generated criteria (which

can then be ranked). Scoring against

criteria is easier to visualise for

consensus-building and comparing

across SH groups.

Incorporate the wildlife

enterprise in the above.

How wildlife enterprise fits into

strategies, how it

meets livelihood criteria.

Construct matrix of activities

and needs

What needs are, which activities are

pursued and why. Which activities

have multiple functions.

Construct matrix of positive and

negative impacts of WE onother activities

Impacts of project on other

livelihood activities

Carry out any of the above in

stakeholder Groups.

Differences between SHs in terms of

activities,

strategies, and impacts.

Seasonali

ty

Construct matrix or discussion

of seasonality of income, work,

food availability.

Livelihood strategies. Main needs.

Human capital availability.

Wealth

ranking

Carry out wealth ranking of

participants and explanation of

criteria

Stakeholder identification

Local criteria for livelihood security

Compare with previous wealth

ranking

How people move in and out of

poverty and why

Scenario-

building

Paint picture (verbally or

literally) of

positive and negative future in

general or resulting from this

enterprise

Long-term trends. Long-term

impacts of project

Useful if going on to joint planning.

Current Discuss: what are the assets and Should identify livelihood assets, and

7 Source: Ashley, C and K. Hussein (2000) op cit.


17/23

assets and

resources

resources you currently rely on

to support the family (building

blocks)? How?

relative

importance.

Constrain

ts

Discuss: what are the

constraints that

prevent livelihood

improvement?

Encourages focus on external

influences

Pros andcons of

WE

Lists pros and cons. Rank prosand cons. Identify who bears

costs and receives benefits.

Direct and indirect impacts of project. Priority concerns,

significance of impacts. Distribution

of impacts between stakeholders.

Participat

ion

in the

project

Discuss who does and does not

participate, why? Discuss how

participants are selected?

Stakeholder roles. Impacts as

perceived by each. Barriers to

participation (external or internal)

Expendit

ure

of

earnings

Rank/matrix of items of

expenditure. Who decides?

Impact of earnings (e.g. on needs,

HH assets)

Who benefits

Time-line

and

trends

Construct time line. Discussion

of key events and gradual

trends. How people coped or

adapted? How are they

preparing for the next change?

Household action, community

action.

Adaptive livelihood strategies and

coping strategies. Influence of

external policies and organisations.

Dynamic processes. Role of internal

organisation.

Changes

and

causes

Construct matrix of recent

major changes and their causes,

then rank the most influential

causes of each.

Changes in livelihoods over time.

Role of external influences.

Significance or not of the project as a

major influence.

Some relevant questions to be asked in deciding methods might include:

Which collection method can provide the needed data in the allotted time?

Will the adoption of more than one methods provide the opportunity for cross-checking

findings or only result in conflicting and incompatible data?

What are the skills of those who will conduct the study in the field?What budget and logistical support can be supplied to the field operations?8

3.6 How should I design Livelihoods Indicators?

The SL Framework can provide a useful guide and checklist for the identification of

indicators and the key linkages between them. The Framework is useful for this purpose in

that it highlights the various dimensions of livelihoods that may be affected by project

interventions. It helps to overcome some common problems relating to indicator choice,

such as: overlooking impacts in unrelated sectors; focussing on material outputs, rather than

8 Blake, B et al (2000) West Africa Sustainable Fisheries Livelihoods: Guidelines for Programme and Project Monitoringand Evaluation. NRI for DFID.

17


18/23

impacts on people and policy; measuring income based impacts rather than wider livelihood

outcomes; or not considering the possibility that people might change their livelihood

strategy altogether.

The Bangladesh Livelihoods Monitoring System used the livelihoods framework as a guide

for ensuring that the different dimensions of livelihoods were captured. The table below

summarises the range of indicators that emerged from field visits and discussions with

project staff. The aim is to distil from this full baseline a sub-set of key indicators which

will inform them of the general livelihood status of project participants9.

9 Turton, C. with K. Westley and J. Goulden (2000) Bangladesh: Design of a Livelihood Monitoring System. InDevelopment Ltd. for DFID


19/23

Table 5. Livelihood indicators for the Bangladesh Livelihoods Monitoring System10.

Indicator Variables

Vulnerabilit

ySeasonality

Shocks/stress

es

Resource

trends

Most difficult time of the year? Food stocks.Dowry; River erosion; cyclone; pest disease attacks; rainfall

patterns; illegal possession of land

Permanent and seasonal migration; reduced income opportunities.

Assets

Land/trees

Water

Livestock

Physicalassets

Human

capital

Financial

Owned/rented/leased

Access to irrigation facility STWs/DBWs;

Number of adult/young cow/buffalo/goat/poultry/Ducks. Owned

or sharedHousing condition/furniture; Bicycle, radio, TV; agricultural

equipment

No. in household; old age dependency ratio; Literacy levels;

disabled member; female headed. Type of health service used

(FWC; private doctor); purchase of prescription

Remittances; saving/loan status.

PIPs

Local

networks

Marketing

Caste

Gender

Conflict

Participation in community activity; membership in indigenous

organisations; contact with other NGOs; access to financial

institutions; access to extension; access to NGO loanWho participates? Nature of marketing private company,

middleman, individual initiative, exchange within village

For Muslims as well as Hindus?

Frequency of women coming together; movement within and

outside community; level of control over household decisions.

Involved in any conflict with household within the village

Strategies

Income

sources/ time

allocation

Coping

strategies

Adapting

strategiesLabour

Investment

Homestead agriculture; field agriculture; daily field labour; daily

town labour; selling fodder grass; wholesale business; fruit and

vegetable production; rickshaw pulling; short-term migration; poultry rearing; cattle rearing; selling milk in market; small

business - fried rice selling

Selling land; ornaments; draft animals; tin sheets; trees; utensils;

loans; child/women labour; migration to towns; illegal felling

New activities - diversification; migration

Number of days sold by gender; contract arrangement advanceselling ; wage rate in peak and lean

Are you saving? loan/savings use

OutcomesFood Number of months from own production. In difficult months

10 Source: Turton, C. et. al(2000) op cit

19


20/23

security

Education

Environment

Sustainabilit

y

Health

Expenditure

Womens

empowermen

t

can you feed adequately no. of meals/day

Number of children in school; Number of years in school

Use of pesticide/fertiliser; number of trees/household; livestock to

land ratio; use of organic matter fuel vs. field; access to

common property resources. Energy use;

Under five wasting; under five stunting; BMI; Incidence of

diarrhoea

Night blindness; Skin disease; medical expenses

Eid expenditure;

Frequency of women coming together; Movement within and

outside community; Level of control over household decisions

Indicators should be selected in discussion and collaboration with project partners and

ideally with beneficiary involvement. Such processes involve considerable time and cost

investment hence the trade-off between covering a range of livelihoods indicators and ease

should be carefully considered. Only measure what is really required, and think strategically

about who will use the information and what for.

It is important to leave indicators open to capture unexpected issues that may emerge, and

there should be a certain degree of flexibility and room for negotiation and adaptation. They

should also consider intangible as well as tangible impacts, although these may be harder to

measure.

Collecting baseline data is also important for indicator data to be of optimal use. This

activity needs to be planned early in the project cycle, hence the importance of thinkingabout M&E right from the project planning stage. It can also be a costly and time

consuming process which will have implications for the scope and depth of the M&E

activities proposed.

Livelihoods M&E is not ultimately concerned with attaching a value to livelihoods

outcomes, but rather with understanding whether livelihoods are moving in a positive

direction. Hence, it is more relevant to focus on determining trends and direction of change

rather than to attach values to change. There is, however, significant value in differentiating

impacts between stakeholder groups (e.g. poverty groupings, by gender, etc) in order to see

who benefits more, and who less from certain interventions, and to ensure that ultimatelythe livelihoods of the poor are being addressed. Tabulating direction of change for different

stakeholder groups over time may provide useful insights.

3.7 How can Livelihoods M&E data be analysed?

Much emphasis should be placed on the stage of analysis of M&E data. There is a tendency

to focus more on collecting quantities of data at the expense of good quality analysis.

Planning for analysis is important: who will carry out the analysis?; how will it be

presented?; who or what is the resulting information intended for?

Analysis of information needs to be appropriate to the needs it aims to fulfil. Firstly,


21/23

understanding process, understanding outcomes and understanding impacts are all helpful

for ongoing managerial learning so that if outcomes and impacts of the intervention do not

begin to emerge as envisaged, then corrective action may be taken. Secondly, M&E can

produce relevant information that feeds into future planning, policy-making and resource

allocation. Finally, lessons from M&E can add to our understanding and validation of the

Livelihoods approach and its effectiveness as an approach to poverty reduction. Different

lessons may be drawn from the data (and the M&E methodology) to fulfil each of these,

and the results targeted at a particular audience perhaps using distinct means of

communication in each case.

However, analysis of Livelihoods data can have its limitations. There are often difficulties

associated with attributing impacts to individual projects. These are potentially

compounded when trying to determine the impact of interventions on the livelihoods of the

poor. This is particularly the case in Livelihoods M&E as it attempts to:

assess the influence of, or influence on macro level changes in policies or institutions

and correlate with changes at the household level (e.g. directly attributing improved

resilience to changes in health or educational status of individuals, households and target

populations on a national scale);

assess less easily quantifiable, more subjective livelihood outcomes, (e.g. empowerment,

improved well-being);

assess changes in the long-term;

tries to capture predicted as well as unpredicted livelihood outcomes;

progress from outputs to goal level within project/ programme logframes where more

assumptions and risks are added11.

Such issues should be considered at the design stage, as they may be partially overcomethrough the use of appropriate research tools. The use of flow diagrams, for example, can

help establish the links between impacts and particular project interventions. However,

most of these issues require further work in order to understand better how complex

livelihoods impacts can be assessed.

Presentation and dissemination of the findings of a Livelihoods M&E is a critical stage of

the M&E cycle that is commonly forgotten. Careful consideration should be given to the

potential users of the information resulting from the M&E, and to appropriate means of

communications. Users may include project staff, project beneficiaries, policy makers and

other donor agency staff. Means of communication of results might include workshops,publications, video, or meetings with policy makers, amongst others.

3.8 What are the Costs and Benefits of Livelihoods M&E?

In any type of M&E activity time, technical capacity and cost constraints are commonly

identified as limiting factors. These constraints, and the various options for dealing with

them, need to be considered carefully and weighed against the benefits of a comprehensive,sustainable and participatory Livelihoods M&E system.

The costs of Livelihoods M&E include:

11 Drake, L. (2000) Scoping mission to investigate the development of Livelihoods Indicators and LivelihoodsMonitoring systems for DFID-Bangladesh.

21


22/23

Opening up the design of M&E methods and indicators, as well as collection and analysis

of data to include people with different views means that the process will probably take

longer and require more compromises.

Additional skills requirements include: inter-disciplinary collaboration, strong analytical

skills, good facilitation, and more complex data analysis. These may require hiring

additional (possibly expatriate) input, with related costs.

Other additional resources required might include more time required for planning and

executing a comprehensive approach, office space to locate an M&E unit, additional

transport, and resources for communication of findings.

Some of these problems can be at least partially overcome. Participatory methods are not

always more costly than conventional methods, particularly if conventional methods

involve international consultants with high fees, or purchase of technical equipment, e.g. for

remote sensing. The costs of staff, training and other resources required to set up an M&E

unit may be significant, but such a unit can be based within an existing structure, or its

development can be gradual over time.

Furthermore, the value of establishing a sustainable, learning-process oriented and people-

centred M&E system is, of course, considerable. Benefits include, amongst others:

Costs saved in halting or redesigning activities that are having unforeseen negative effects;

Benefits of a clearer understanding of how the project goals and impacts including howthey relate to Sustainable Livelihoods; and the

Rewards from having more motivated project staff and beneficiaries who are not afraid to

acknowledge difficulties and learn from experience.

3.9 Summary

In summary, the focus, principles and framework of the Sustainable Livelihoods approach

draw attention to ways in which conventional M&E can more effectively contribute to

poverty reduction. The following table summarises some of the emerging characteristics of

a Livelihoods approach to M&E.

Table 6. Summary of characteristics of Livelihoods M&E

View of impact

Broad, holistic and cross-sectoral Direct and indirect, intended and unintended

Scope Beyond the project

Tracks impacts over time, and beyond life of projects

Includes cumulative impacts

Purpose Learning not policing

Learning about project progress and effectiveness

Learning about the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach

Levels Looks at local level and macro level changes

Makes linkages between them

Responsibility

Works in partnership Strengthens internal commitment and capacity

Methods Participatory


23/23

Quantitative and qualitative

Outputs Information for corrective action within projects

Information for planning and policy making

Capacity built for continuous learning

The implications of these new goals and perspectives for implementation are only now

beginning to be explored and tested in the field. As more experiences of Livelihoods M&E

are documented and shared further insights and practical lessons can be added to thosealready outlined in this tool.

4. Links to further information online

Eldis hot topic guide to Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation

http://nt1.ids.ac.uk/eldis/hot/pme.htm

SL guidance sheet 3.4 on M&E

http://www.livelihoods.org/info/info_guidanceSheets.html

Discussions on Livelihoods Indicators

http://www.livelihoods.org/post/Indic-Theme1.html

Sustainability Indicators for Natural Resource Management and Policy

http://les.man.ac.uk/ses/research/CAFRE/indicators/home1.htm

Developing Methodologies for Livelihood Impact Assessment: Experience of the AfricanWildlife Foundation in East Africa, by Caroline Ashley and Karim Hussein, ODI Working

Paper 129: http://www.odi.org.uk/publications/intro.html
http://nt1.ids.ac.uk/eldis/hot/pme.htmhttp://www.livelihoods.org/info/info_guidanceSheets.htmlhttp://www.livelihoods.org/post/Indic-Theme1.htmlhttp://les.man.ac.uk/ses/research/CAFRE/indicators/home1.htmhttp://www.odi.org.uk/publications/intro.htmlhttp://www.livelihoods.org/info/info_guidanceSheets.htmlhttp://www.livelihoods.org/post/Indic-Theme1.htmlhttp://les.man.ac.uk/ses/research/CAFRE/indicators/home1.htmhttp://www.odi.org.uk/publications/intro.htmlhttp://nt1.ids.ac.uk/eldis/hot/pme.htm

livelihood m & e

Documents