Module 6.2. Applicable Tools

Module 6.2 builds on the conceptual foundations of Module 6.1, presenting advice and resources that can help guide monitoring, evaluation, accountability and learning processes for a locally led action project.

Module 6.2 provides information about:

In addition to the methodologies presented here, many of the approaches included elsewhere in the toolkit – particularly Initial Scoping in Unit 0 and Theories of Change in Unit 4 – can be useful for MEAL processes.

This module will help users:

• develop a logframe informed by the project’s theory of change
• design customised Everyday Peace Indicators specific to the project’s climate, peace and security context
• use an environmentally focused toolkit to build capacity for a variety of MEAL techniques

What is a logframe?

A logframe (logical framework matrix) concisely and systematically outlines a project’s intended results. Logframes can build on the project’s theory of change to summarise the project’s assumptions, activities and intentions. Vertically, a logframe outlines a logical sequence connecting specific actions to a ‘big picture’ impact. Horizontally, a logframe provides a starting place for monitoring and evaluation, with a focus on indicators and means of verification.

The first column of a logframe presents a hierarchy of project design elements, with specific activities on the bottom leading to outputs, outputs leading to outcomes, outcomes leading to a broader-level result (sometimes called “intermediary state”), and the intermediary level leading to an overall impact. The second column details the indicators that can confirm whether that row’s project element has been achieved; the third column outlines which data sources and verification methods will be used to measure the indicator. The final column explicitly states assumptions or conditions that need to hold true for the project elements to feed into each other properly (for instance, an outcome of ‘increases in women’s income’ only contributes to the impact of ‘women’s empowerment’ if women are able to control their own finances.)

Why CREATE A LOGFRAME?

The purpose of a logframe is to carefully think through how and why the activities in a proposed intervention will lead to the intended outputs, how and why those outputs will produce desired outcomes, how and why those outcomes achieve an intermediary state, how and why that purpose feeds into the overall impact — and how and why the project team can evidence that impact. In this way, logframes help break down complicated systems. A logframe can enhance MEAL-based project design and implementation in both directions: from the bottom to the top of the matrix, logframes demonstrate how small actions feed into larger results; from the top to the bottom, logframes can guide planning to ensure focused, tangible actions are built into the project design, rather than relying on overly broad ideas without detailed methods. By leveraging the determined indicators and means of verification at specific steps, projects can easily check where things ‘went wrong’ (or right!) and make adjustments to improve the next phase.

Logframes are a common requirement of donor agencies; as such, using them to aid MEAL processes can also help save time and effort when it comes to grant writing and/or reporting. By providing a structure for both action planning and M&E, logframes help ensure the proposed activities ‘fit’ the stated objectives. They provide a clear project summary that highlights the relative importance of activities and goals, as well as indicating what will be achieved and what should be monitored in order to measure success.

What are some limitations of logframe analysis?

While the structure of logframes is one of their strengths, that very structure can also be a weakness, if not balanced with flexibility and adaptability. Logframes are, by their nature, linear. Simplified representations of very complex problems and solutions – as all environmentally-related conflict contexts are – can restrict creative thinking and ‘miss’ potential side effects. It is important to use logframes as one of several tools, and to regularly return to the logframe in order to check assumptions as you conduct MEAL.

What are everyday peace indicators?

Everyday Peace Indicators (EPI) is an approach to monitoring difficult-to-measure concepts such as peace, reconciliation and governance. It asks communities to define for themselves what peace looks and feels like, and use their understandings (rather than those developed by scholars or outside experts) to build indicators that can be tracked over time. This approach is based on the idea that communities know best about what peace means for them and in their context; as a result, they should be the primary source of information on the effectiveness of peace and security projects.

EPI approaches involve four stages: (1) developing an initial list of indicators – generally via focus group discussion – that measure how community members do and do not experience peace and security; (2) verifying the list of indicators that will be used in the project by engaging other community members in feedback and consensus or voting about the initial list; (3) analysing the current status of the selected EPIs to determine community priorities and inform potential projects; and (4) surveying community members throughout programme implementation as part of monitoring, evaluation, accountability and learning.

Why use everyday peace indicators?

The Everyday Peace Indicators approach can improve how Climate, Peace and Security projects are designed, implemented and evaluated. Orthodox, non-localised indicators of peace are often limited in their accuracy, scope, ownership, empowerment and scale – while EPIs cultivate highly localised, community-led narratives and solutions. EPIs are often linked to everyday resilience and adaptation (e.g., putting food on the table and maintaining livelihoods despite precarious situations), and indicators based on community inputs will be better understood by the community – which can translate into more support for the project. EPIs can thus complement and harmonise with traditional M&E approaches to more effectively measure peace.

Developing contextually relevant indicators has other benefits as well. When community members work together to identify and monitor indicators, it can help build relationships and trust. Community members involved in an EPI approach are encouraged to think critically about key priorities in their context and how these priorities are experienced differently by different parts of their community, supporting conflict-sensitive and gender-responsive approaches. The process can thus help different community groups to better understand and support each other, essentially becoming part of the solution it hopes to measure.

What are some limitations of everyday peace indicators?

It is difficult to ensure that the selected indicators represent the interests of the entire community, especially marginalised groups. Failing to measure priorities that are key to some community members can cause those priorities to go completely under the radar throughout the project – and unrecognised hardship is a potential cause of tensions and conflict. The negative impacts of this limitation can be mitigated by ensuring a diverse, representative group of people are able to engage throughout the EPI process.

Everyday Peace Indicators are, by their nature, likely to be focused on perceptions, experiences and other more personal, embodied forms of information. While this is part of why they’re so valuable, they may not be entirely sufficient for robust MEAL processes, and should be complemented by other approaches engaging broadscale empirical data.