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
8/4/2019 Livelihood M & E
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?
8/4/2019 Livelihood M & E
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
8/4/2019 Livelihood M & E
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.
8/4/2019 Livelihood M & E
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
8/4/2019 Livelihood M & E
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
8/4/2019 Livelihood M & E
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
8/4/2019 Livelihood M & E
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.
8/4/2019 Livelihood M & E
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
8/4/2019 Livelihood M & E
10/23
8/4/2019 Livelihood M & E
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
8/4/2019 Livelihood M & E
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.
8/4/2019 Livelihood M & E
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
8/4/2019 Livelihood M & E
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
8/4/2019 Livelihood M & E
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
8/4/2019 Livelihood M & E
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.
8/4/2019 Livelihood M & E
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
8/4/2019 Livelihood M & E
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
8/4/2019 Livelihood M & E
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
8/4/2019 Livelihood M & E
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,
8/4/2019 Livelihood M & E
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
8/4/2019 Livelihood M & E
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
8/4/2019 Livelihood M & E
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.htmTop Related