Tools for Sustainable Livelihoods:
Livelihoods Monitoring and Evaluation
Kath Pasteur
IDS
21st February 2001
DRAFT FOR COMMENTS
1
Table of contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. 2
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 3
2. WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF LIVELIHOODS MONITORING AND EVALUATION?
........................................................................................................................................................................ 4
2.1 TAKING A BROAD SL FOCUS .................................................................................................................. 4
2.2 THE SL PRINCIPLES ............................................................................................................................... 4
2.2.1 People centred and participatory .................................................................................................. 5
2.2.2 Holistic and cross-sectoral, ........................................................................................................... 5
2.2.3 Linking micro to macro ................................................................................................................. 6
2.2.4 Dynamic and Sustainable .............................................................................................................. 6
2.2.5 Support a process, ‘learning’ approach ........................................................................................ 6
2.3 THE SL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................................ 6
3. HOW DO I IMPLEMENT A LIVELIHOODS APPROACH TO M&E?........................................... 8
3.1 HOW DOES LIVELIHOODS M&E FIT IN THE PROJECT CYCLE? .................................................................. 8
3.2 HOW DOES LIVELIHOODS M&E RELATE TO THE LOGICAL FRAMEWORK? .............................................. 8
3.3 WHAT INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS SUPPORT LIVELIHOODS M&E? .............................................. 11
3.4 WHAT METHODS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR LIVELIHOODS M&E? ............................................................ 12
3.6 HOW SHOULD I DESIGN LIVELIHOODS INDICATORS? ............................................................................ 14
3.7 HOW CAN LIVELIHOODS M&E DATA BE ANALYSED? ........................................................................... 16
3.8 WHAT ARE THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF LIVELIHOODS M&E? ........................................................... 17
3.9 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 17
4. LINKS TO FURTHER INFORMATION ONLINE............................................................................ 18
2
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 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 framework helps 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.
3
2. What are the Characteristics of Livelihoods Monitoring and
Evaluation?
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 Did the project process achieve the intended
activities and how effectively this is done, i.e. outcomes? Did it incorporate the SL principles?
the project strategy, work styles, management Was the SL framework an effective tool for
arrangements, etc. planning appropriate activities?
Outcome: measuring the effect of the Do the outcomes correspond to the needs
activities that have been undertaken, and their identified in the SL analysis? Are they cross-
progress towards achieving the project cutting (including technical, social, human,
purpose. financial)?
Impact: ascertaining the longer term and Has the project resulted in people’s access to a
more widespread, intended and unintended, greater and more balanced range of livelihood
consequences of an intervention, and assets? Has it reduced vulnerability and
monitoring progress towards broader improved livelihood outcomes? Has there been
livelihoods goals. a beneficial policy impact?
Livelihoods M&E can be used to monitor and evaluate the impact of an individual 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 people’s 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
4
Principle Implication
People-centred and Poor people are the central focus
participatory 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 them
Dynamic and sustainable Ensure that the dynamic and fluctuating nature of livelihoods
is reflected
Long term viability of interventions and sustainability
Support a process, ‘learning’ Not just for project learning but for policy input wider
approach understanding of resource allocation processes (reword)
Capacity building such that learning continues beyond the
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 being
addressed
Participatory i.e. ensure that poor people are key stakeholders in the M&E process.
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;
People’s attitudes to change are as important as physical measures of change;
1
Partners and beneficiaries play a key role in judging performance.
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.
1
Blake, B et al (2000) West Africa Sustainable Fisheries Livelihoods: Guidelines for Programme and Project
Monitoring and Evaluation. NRI for DFID.
5
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 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 people’s
livelihoods, and typical relationships between these. It provides a way of thinking through
different influences (constraints and opportunities) on livelihoods, and ensuring 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
2
Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets (www.livelihoods.org)
6
‘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 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 quantitative increases 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 which these outcomes are, or
are not reached.
more negotiable and open-ended – to take account of diverse unpredicted outcomes;
different people’s 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 trends as well as positive trends - understanding what went 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
Livelihoods Monitoring systems for DFID-Bangladesh.
7
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
The collection of baseline data is important for accurate analysis of impacts and outcomes (i.e.
before and after comparisons). A Sustainable Livelihoods Analysis should ideally be carried
for Final evaluation of process and Livelihoods analysis identifies
at the problems and focuses on
outoutcomes.design stage and this would then provide a useful baseline study since it desired outcomes
people’s ownimpact to ascertain Identification baseline
Evaluation of reality, and identifies strengths as well as weaknesses. Otherwise a of indicators and means
feedback
achievement be conducted
study shouldof project purpose / shortly after obtaining project approval. ‘With-without’ comparisons
of verification to be fed into logframe
goal.
can also be conducted as well as ‘before-after’, to generate more robustDesign of M&E methodology and
Feedback into planning of future
IDENTIFICATION findings.
Scoping study also included in logframe & budgets.
Livelihoods analysis may serve as
The detailed planning and organisation Identification of partners
of an M&E system should be baseline early M&E
dealt with study foron in the
project implementation phase. Whether this involves setting up a new M&E unit, or working
within existing structures, it is likely that training, support and supervision will be required both
EVALUATION
DESIGN
at the start, and at phased intervals throughout the project.
Livelihoods analysis may be
conducted
1. M&E and the Logical Framework Logframe prepared
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
OPERATION &
to both these activities. The project goal will be verifiable through impact indicators, the project
MONITORING APPRAISAL &
purpose through the outcome indicators, and the project outputs through process indicators.
feedback APPROVAL
feedback
Continued monitoring of process.
Monitoring of outcomes of project IMPLEMENTATION
3.2 activities.
How does livelihoods M&E relate to the Logical Framework? M&E design also
& MONITORING appraised and
Logframes are often associated with blueprint projects. However, their widespread use means
Periodic review of impacts to approved
monitoring activities increasingly have to be structured in this format. In trying to
thatmonitor achievement of project
incorporate Livelihoods M&E in a project logframe, it is necessary to take a “process” approach,
purpose.
Setting up M&E Unit.
Monitoring of operation of M&E
Training of staff in M&E methods.
Monitoring of implementation feedback
process.
8
Feedback for corrective action.
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 verification should
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 and other lesson learning
events.
9
Table 3. M&E in the logframe: from the Andhra Pradesh Rural Livelihoods Project4
Narrative Summary Objectively Verifiable Indicators Means of Verification
Goal Population below the official poverty line Government of Andhra Pradesh (GoAP)
Effective and sustainable falls by 30% by EOP in project districts below Poverty Line Surveys
approaches to eliminate poverty
adopted in drought-prone areas New government guidelines and schemes Policy documents and scheme
of Andhra Pradesh which improve the delivery of services guidelines; stakeholder workshops and
through participation, equity and other lesson learning events
convergence adopted
Purpose X% of below poverty line households can Stakeholder workshops at PY2 and
Government of Andhra Pradesh specify at least y% increase in incomes as annual reviews in PY 4, 5, and 7.
able to comprehensively a result of project interventions by EOP
implement pro-poor watershed- Project monitoring and impact
based sustainable rural 70% of marginal farmers report significantly assessment system developed in PY1.
livelihoods approaches in five improved drought proofing. Participatory approaches to PMIAS
districts of Andhra Pradesh developed using PRA case studies,
GoAP develops and implements a Capacity small scale sample surveys using
Building strategy on watershed based SRL special focus groups identified by
agenda for the whole state by EOP. stakeholder analysis against which to
report distributional issues.
Communities, particularly Schedule
Caste/Tribe groups, have greater capacity
to take up, participate in and influence
Government services.
Component 1: Watershed-plus based sustainable rural livelihood initiatives
2. Higher return income and Livelihood options of the poorest common Project monitoring and impact
employment options (both land- interest groups have been adequately assessment system (PMIAS) developed
based and non-land-based) represented in microplans. in PY1. As above.
identified and pursued through
increased access to Expenditure on food, health care, education Regular project monitoring data
Government and other and shelter by landless and marginal collection on quarterly and six monthly
initiatives/schemes by the farmers increased and sustained by EOP. basis
poorest in the watershed
programme in 500 watersheds. Increased and successful access to a Reviews of micro-plans by MDTs, DPAP
range of GoAP poverty alleviation schemes and DCBC, PIAs and village based
by Below Poverty Line households, workshops with village professionals,
particularly SC/ST and female headed SHGs, user groups and other WDA
households, (at least X%) by PY2. members.
Component 4: Lesson Learning and policy influence
6. Approaches developed in the Participatory M&E, impact assessment and DPAP/PSU annual reports, policy
project, particularly on non-land- planning approaches developed and specific studies and documentation,
based initiatives and other informing development of project stakeholder workshops, feedback
aspects of watershed plus, approaches by PY2. through communications strategy
replicated widely. development and dissemination events.
Key lessons and approaches from the
project adopted by GoAP in the entire
State.
Project experience documented and
disseminated to all stakeholders using
appropriate media
7. The sectoral policy GoAP makes policy changes through GoAP orders/ circulars and documents
environment in AP strengthened appropriate instruments in relation to issues charting progress of Watershed
to ensure greater (& which impact on the poor Development Programme
sustainable) impact for women
and the poorest and more Mechanisms for identifying such issues, Stakeholder workshops, participatory
effective working partnerships and taking policy decisions in relation to monitoring and evaluation system
between Government and them established. feedback
NGOs
4
Source: Adapted from APRLP Logical Framework 1999-2006. APRLP is a Sustainable Livelihoods project that
uses watershed management as its entry point. This table has selected a limited number of elements from the
complete logframe in order to illustrate impact and output indicators, and a range of participatory and conventional
sources of verification.
10
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 out during project
implementation, and to be sustained throughout operation, then dedicated staff and resources
need to be made available for this task.
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 programme’s 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.
5
Box 2. Organisational structure of Bangladesh Livelihoods Monitoring System
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
CARE -Bangladesh Steering Group DFID Bangladesh
Livelihoods Unit NR/FAR
advisors
Co-management
Project M&E team
CARE-DFID Field
Management
ANR Sector Staff
SHABGE, Go-interfish
and other projects
5
Turton, C. with K. Westley and J. Goulden (2000) Bangladesh: Design of a Livelihood Monitoring System. In
Development Ltd. for DFID
11
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
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 the
African Wildlife Foundation in East Africa. ODI Working Paper 129.
12
Table 4 Topics and PRA-type tools for livelihood impact assessment7.
Topics Activities What can be learned
Current List pros and cons Livelihood strategies. Criteria for judging
livelihood Rank according to: Key activities and assets. Ball park figures for income
activites - Contribution to income from different activities. Values other than cash
- Preference income. Criteria can then be
- Importance to HH. Discuss. discussed/expanded/ranked.
Generate criteria for scoring activities and As above but more complex. Focuses on locally-
construct matrix 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 project on other livelihood activities
impacts of WE on other activities
Carry out any of the above in stakeholder Differences between SHs in terms of activities,
Groups. strategies, and impacts.
Seasonality Construct matrix or discussion of seasonality of Livelihood strategies. Main needs. Human capital
income, work, food availability. availability.
Wealth Carry out wealth ranking of participants and Stakeholder identification
ranking explanation of criteria Local criteria for livelihood security
Compare with previous wealth ranking How people move in and out of poverty and why
Scenario- Paint picture (verbally or literally) of Long-term trends. Long-term impacts of project
building positive and negative future – in general or Useful if going on to joint planning.
resulting from this enterprise
Current Discuss: what are the assets and resources Should identify livelihood assets, and relative
assets and you currently rely on to support the family importance.
resources (building blocks)? How?
Constraints Discuss: what are the constraints that Encourages focus on external influences
prevent livelihood improvement?
Pros and Lists pros and cons. Rank pros and cons. Direct and indirect impacts of project. Priority
cons of WE Identify who bears costs and receives benefits. concerns, significance of impacts. Distribution of
impacts between stakeholders.
Participation Discuss who does and does not Stakeholder roles. Impacts as perceived by each.
in the participate, why? Discuss how participants are Barriers to participation (external or internal)
project selected?
Expenditure Rank/matrix of items of expenditure. Who Impact of earnings (e.g. on needs, HH assets)
of earnings decides? Who benefits
Time-line Construct time line. Discussion of key events Adaptive livelihood strategies and coping strategies.
and trends and gradual trends. How people coped or Influence of external policies and organisations.
adapted? How are they preparing for the next Dynamic processes. Role of internal organisation.
change? Household action, community action.
Changes and Construct matrix of recent major changes and Changes in livelihoods over time. Role of external
causes their causes, then rank the most influential influences. Significance or not of the project as a major
causes of each. 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?
8
What budget and logistical support can be supplied to the field operations?
7
Source: Ashley, C and K. Hussein (2000) op cit.
8
Blake, B et al (2000) West Africa Sustainable Fisheries Livelihoods: Guidelines for Programme and Project
Monitoring and Evaluation. NRI for DFID.
13
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 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. In
Development Ltd. for DFID
14
Table 5. Livelihood indicators for the Bangladesh Livelihoods Monitoring System10.
Indicator Variables
Vulnerability
Seasonality Most difficult time of the year? Food stocks.
Shocks/stresses Dowry; River erosion; cyclone; pest disease attacks; rainfall patterns; illegal possession of land
Resource trends Permanent and seasonal migration; reduced income opportunities.
Assets
Land/trees Owned/rented/leased
Water Access to irrigation facility STWs/DBWs;
Livestock Number of adult/young cow/buffalo/goat/poultry/Ducks. Owned or shared
Physical assets Housing condition/furniture; Bicycle, radio, TV; agricultural equipment
Human capital No. in household; old age dependency ratio; Literacy levels; disabled member; female headed.
Type of health service used (FWC; private doctor); purchase of prescription
Financial Remittances; saving/loan status.
PIPs
Local networks Participation in community activity; membership in indigenous organisations; contact with other
NGOs; access to financial institutions; access to extension; access to NGO loan
Marketing Who participates? Nature of marketing – private company, middleman, individual initiative,
exchange within village
Caste For Muslims as well as Hindus?
Gender Frequency of women coming together; movement within and outside community; level of control
over household decisions.
Conflict Involved in any conflict with household within the village
Strategies
Income sources/ Homestead agriculture; field agriculture; daily field labour; daily town labour; selling fodder grass;
time allocation wholesale business; fruit and vegetable production; rickshaw pulling; short-term migration;
poultry rearing; cattle rearing; selling milk in market; small business - fried rice selling
Coping strategies Selling land; ornaments; draft animals; tin sheets; trees; utensils; loans; child/women labour;
migration to towns; illegal felling
Adapting strategies New activities - diversification; migration
Labour Number of days sold by gender; contract arrangement – advance selling ; wage rate in peak and
lean
Investment Are you saving? loan/savings use
Outcomes
Food security Number of months from own production. In difficult months – can you feed adequately – no. of
meals/day
Education Number of children in school; Number of years in school
Environment Use of pesticide/fertiliser; number of trees/household; livestock to land ratio; use of organic
Sustainability matter – fuel vs. field; access to common property resources. Energy use;
Under five wasting; under five stunting; BMI; Incidence of diarrhoea
Health Night blindness; Skin disease; medical expenses
Expenditure Eid expenditure;
Women’s Frequency of women coming together; Movement within and outside community; Level of control
empowerment 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.
10
Source: Turton, C. et. al (2000) op cit
15
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 thinking about 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 ultimately the 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,
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.
11
Drake, L. (2000) Scoping mission to investigate the development of Livelihoods Indicators and Livelihoods
Monitoring systems for DFID-Bangladesh.
16
Such issues should be considered at the design stage, as they may be partially overcome
through 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:
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 how they
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
17
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
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 those already
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 African
Wildlife Foundation in East Africa’, by Caroline Ashley and Karim Hussein, ODI Working Paper
129: http://www.odi.org.uk/publications/intro.html
18