101. Percentage of population in targeted communities reporting benefits from an enhanced livelihoods asset base (ABI)

101. Percentage of population in targeted communities reporting benefits from an enhanced livelihoods asset base (ABI)

VERSION

V1.0 - 2026.03 — NEW

INDICATOR CODE

101

TECHNICAL OWNER

PRGR

INDICATOR TYPE

Country Level Outcome Indicator

INDICATOR CLASSIFICATION

Mandatory

INDICATOR SCOPE

Programme specific

APPLICABILITY

The selection of this indicator is mandatory against the following sub-activities in CSPs logframes. Selection of the below sub-activities will trigger in COMET the mandatory selection of this indicator:

1. Food Assistance for Assets (FFA)

UNIT OF MEASUREMENT & ANALYSIS

Percentage of population

DEFINITION

This indicator measures the proportion of the population (%) in targeted communities benefiting from an enhanced asset base, as reported and perceived at the household level.

Below are some key definitions for this indicator:

Population: All inhabitants (without exception) living in the area of the ‘targeted community’. The ‘population’ may include individuals temporarily living in the area, such as internally displaced populations, returnees, refugees, etc., if these are considered part of the community for whom the assets have been identified.

Targeted community: FFA is meant to build/rehabilitate assets (community infrastructure and restore ecosystems), reducing the risk of disaster, strengthening livelihoods and building resilience over time, both at the household and at the community level. The concept of ‘targeted community’ varies considerably from one context to another and may encompass people with different needs, priorities and roles. For example, both host and displaced populations within the same catchment area/landscape/site can belong to the same ‘targeted community’, although they may have very different needs and priorities. As such, ‘targeted community’ should here be understood as the population living in a clearly defined geographic locality with and for whom interventions have been identified. Depending on the context it may correspond to a community watershed, the smallest administrative unit (village, ward, etc.) or a set of clearly identifiable human settlements (neighborhood, refugee/IDP camp, etc.). In case the FFA activity is not deliberately planned and implemented at the community level then, by default, the smallest administrative unit where the FFA intervention is implemented will be considered as the ‘targeted community’.

Assets: Relates to any type of community infrastructure or ecosystem restauration intervention assets that can be implemented through FFA. This includes:

• Tangible assets, which can either be (i) assets related to landscapes, ecosystems and households such as water management and harvesting, tree plantings, land rehabilitation and reclamation, small irrigation infrastructure, canals, flood protection, soil and water conservation, regenerative agriculture and circular economy structures, composting facilities; or (ii) physical assets that improve access to food or markets and essential basic services to support lives and livelihoods (such as community access roads, trails, bridges etc.) and community infrastructure such as latrines, schools, grain stores, etc.

• Intangible assets (human capital), which directly relate to trainings on the creation, management, and maintenance of tangible assets, including the development of the committees and associations required to manage these assets. Note that any other training provided is not considered FFA and does not fall under the scope of the ABI indicator.

Benefits: refer to the positive changes that households perceive as resulting from the community assets created or rehabilitated through FFA. These benefits reflect how the enhanced asset base helps people better manage shocks, improve their livelihoods, access key services, protect their environment, and reduce day‑to‑day hardships. (see detailed set of benefits in the rationale section)..

Enhanced asset base: Asset base considers the collection of physical, natural, and livelihood‑supporting resources that communities rely on to protect themselves, sustain production, access services, and maintain their wellbeing. It includes things like land and soil quality, water points, irrigation systems, roads, community infrastructure, and environmental conditions. The ABI indicator is intended to measure the effects of the relative change in the asset base as a result of the FFA activity. As such, it should necessarily be set at zero at the beginning of the FFA programme (in the baseline). The ‘enhanced asset base’ therefore reflects the changes in the asset base since the beginning of the FFA programme in the community (rather than during the reporting year).

Participant Household is a household with at least one HH member who has directly participated in an FFA activity.

Non-participant Household is a household in the targeted community where no household members participated in an FFA activity.

RATIONALE

FFA interventions aim to strengthen the asset base of targeted communities so that households experience tangible improvements in their livelihoods and overall resilience. The assets created or rehabilitated through FFA are expected to generate a range of benefits, which typically fall under the following seven outcome areas:

1. Improved protection from sudden onset natural shocks (floods, mudslides, landslides, etc.).

2. Improved water access availability due to rehabilitated irrigation systems, restored water points, and water conservation practices.

3. Increased or diversified production due to greater water availability and/or soil fertility¹ (e.g., increased or diversified production in agriculture, livestock or other);

4. Improved/restored physical access to markets and/or basic services due to roads and community infrastructure built or restored (schools, grain stores, medical centers, sanitation, waste management facilities, etc.)

5. Improved natural environment due to land stabilization/rehabilitation, afforestation (more vegetal cover, water availability, water table increased, increase in indigenous flora/fauna, less erosion or siltation of field, etc.).

6. Improved management or maintenance of household and community livelihood assets due to better knowledge, more time availability, or financial resources.

7. Reduced hardships and/or increased time availability supported by assets built or restored.

DATA COLLECTION TOOL

The electronic version of the questions associated with this indicator (listed below) can be found in Survey Designer by selecting the “Percentage of the population in targeted communities reporting benefits from an enhanced asset base (ABI)” Indicator of the Livelihoods Indicator Area.

SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS

Sampling requirements are the same as for PDMs or monitoring surveys, where the questions of the ABI data collection tool will be included. Detailed guidance on sampling options is available here. Panel sampling is strongly recommended for the follow-up of this indicator.

INDICATOR CALCULATION FOR REPORTING

Each of the 7 questions of this module with a positive answer is counted as one (1) in the calculation. Likewise, questions with a negative answer are counted as zero (0).

Disaggregated figures of this indicator sum, for each type of benefit, the number of households with a positive answer divided by the total number of households interviewed.

Example ABIa for Improved protection from sudden onset natural shocks:

Scripts in R and sample data are available on github for calculating this indicator.

DATA ENTRY AND DISAGGREGATION IN CORPORATE SYSTEMS

Values are recorded in the logframe. Each value has a reporting combination which is created based on:

• Country

• Target group

• Activity

• Sub-activity

Baseline, target and follow-up values of this indicator must be recorded in COMET by type of benefit, as follows:

The overall ABI should be calculated in COMET as the maximum value reported among all benefits (see options a to h).  As options (a to h) are only mandatory if applicable, it means that at least one of these options needs to be reported for the indicator to be calculated.  If any of the benefits are not applicable, you should enter a value of 0. 

Sample Size and Sample Frame should be equally reported for each target group to properly inform on its statistical   margin of error and allow for analysis to refer to the number of people represented in these results. 

BASELINE

Baselines are set only once, at one of the following points:

1. At the beginning of the CSP, or

2. When the indicator is selected for reporting after the commencement of the CSP, or

3. When there is a change in target, location and/or modality that triggers a new reporting combination (target, location and modality) for an existing indicator.

Baseline values should be established within three months before and no later than three months from the start date of activity implementation. However, it is strongly recommended to collect baseline values within one month before the start of the activity implementation. The baseline could also be determined from a relevant WFP assessment conducted within the three months prior to the start of programme activity.

For the sake of comparability, baselines, follow-ups and end-line surveys must be conducted using the same sampling frames and disaggregation/stratification criteria.

TARGET SETTING

Targets are set for each applicable type of benefit, and the overall target established for this indicator would be the maximum value within all types of benefit. 

FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION

The ABI should be collected once a year (always at the same time of the year and, ideally, beyond the project completion to allow for longitudinal analysis.

The data collection should be timed to feed into the ACR reporting as well as to inform the following planning period.

In case FFA activities are suspended for a year, it is strongly recommended when possible to continue monitoring the ABI and other indicators relevant for FFA long-term programmes.

For years when a baseline is reported, only one follow up value is required.

INTERPRETATION

The ABI composite indicator score reflects the percentage of the population in the communities where FFA is implemented which is reporting benefits from an improved asset base.

The highest the ABI the largest the proportion of households reporting benefits (of any kind) from the assets created or rehabilitated through FFA.

It is expected that the ABI will increase during the implementation of the FFA programme (especially as longer-term benefits start being felt and reported). Note however that the indicator may reach its maximum level right from year 1 in a given community (and stagnate afterwards) if the FFA action plan for that community prioritizes the creation/rehabilitation of assets benefiting the widest share of the population (e.g. the construction of community access roads, the deepening a water pond, etc.).

Interpretation should be contextualized with information / analysis on:

• The initial situation in the sampled communities, as depicted in the CBPPs and/or by the CP or the community planning team.

• The type and amount of assets that have been created or rehabilitated through the programme;

• The phases at which different asset benefits are expected to kick in;

• The targets that were set for the ABI indicator at the overall project/national level;

• The results achieved per ABI questions, as there may be great disparities among the different types of FFA benefits and the ABI results may be driven by a few questions only.

ABI trend analysis should be done looking at the ABI among a larger package of indicators which includes the FCS, the CSI food and the CSI livelihood. From a resilience standpoint, the questions that should be asked when analyzing/interpreting these indicators are:

• Is the set of indicators depicting a long-term development trend?

• To what extent is the set of indicators “resisting” at times of shocks (lean season or bad years)?

• How quickly is the set of indicators “recovering” aftershocks (lean season or bad

  years)?

ABI results can be disaggregated and analyzed separately for FFA participants and non-participants. Analysis for men and women-headed households, by communities or regions, and/or looking at specific ‘benefits’ can also be undertaken. However, the results obtained through this disaggregation are not representative.

REPORTING EXAMPLE(S)

The following examples show how the ABI results can be presented:

• X % of the overall FFA participants reported benefiting from the asset base.

• Y % of the overall FFA non-participants (residing in targeted areas) reported benefiting from the asset base.

• The average ABI score for all FFA participants and all non-participants as reported by them is X% and Y% respectively.

• Z% of the population in targeted communities have reported benefits from the assets built or rehabilitated through FFA.

• As per perception-based reporting, the assets created or rehabilitated through FFA have benefited Z% of the population in targeted communities.

The percentage of the population in the targeted communities reporting benefits from the assets built or rehabilitated through FFA has increased from A% to B%, despite the occurrence of a shock.

• CO are encouraged to report on each ‘benefit’ (each ABI question) separately.

• The ABI measures perceptions rather than facts, it is important for the COs to

  systematically use the words “reported/perceived benefits”.

INDICATORS COLLECTED & ANALYSED AT THE SAME TIME

It is recommended to analyze the results of this indicator together with the following indicators as applicable:

• T.10 Number of assets built, restored or maintained by targeted households and communities, by type and unit of measure

• 27. Percentage of verified assets that demonstrate improvement in biophysical conditions as confirmed through remote monitoring from space (LCI)

COMPLEMENTARY QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Qualitative data/results can be collected to complement this indicator through qualitative approaches such as direct observation, use of the Asset Impact Monitoring from Space (AIMS) service Key Informant Interviews or Focus Group Discussions. Additional resources on qualitative methodologies which can be used are still to be developed by the technical unit.

DECISIONS DATA CAN INFORM

Decisions which can be informed by this indicator include:

• Programme design (duration, asset choice/type, monitoring frequency, technical support),

• Programme Adjustment (evidence-based programme management).

VISUALIZATION

ABI results can be presented as Pie chart (for a specific observation point) or as 2D-line chart (for multiple observation points) to present how the proportion of population (%) reporting on benefits from an enhanced asset base is changing across multiple years. Please see below examples.

Example 1: Pie chart for a specific year

Example 2: 2D-line chart for multiple years

The presentation can also be made using bar charts showing the results per ABI question (for a specific observation point).

LIMITATIONS

This indicator is important to confirm the perception of benefit reported by targeted household and communities and it is specific of the type of benefit perceived every year. However, as this indicator refers to assets in general, it does not allow to compare benefit between assets nor to differentiate between assets provided at different time in multiyear projects. Unless only one type of assets is provided, this indicator can confirm the sustained perception of benefit and utility of the same asset.

• The ABI and its sub-indicators are perception-based and thus rely on individuals’ views and can be exposed to source-bias. The interviewer must be very cautious when asking the questions not to set the expectations from the interviewee that questions should always be answered positively. In this regard, it is suggested to ask the questions through an informal conversation, as this will encourage individuals to reveal their true perceptions on the benefits achieved.

• While the ABI is primarily intended to capture the perceived effects of the assets created/rehabilitated through FFA, it will be influenced by the effects of the food assistance provided (especially during implementation). It should be clarified by the enumerator that the questions asked to relate to the assets and not to the transfer received (finding the right local translation for ‘assets’ is critical in this regard). This potential bias should be acknowledged when analyzing the ABI results.

• The way the ABI measures ‘benefits’ is binary, i.e. yes/no. As such, the indicator does not capture the intensity of the perceived benefit.

Because most FFA programmes are multi-year, the ‘enhanced asset base’ to which the ABI refers may include assets built or rehabilitated several years before the survey (i.e. at the beginning of the FFA intervention). It is likely that households will tend to underreport the benefits related to those assets for which the recall period is longer. This risk should be mitigated by ensuring that the enumerators systematically remind respondents of the set of assets built since the beginning of the FFA intervention in the community.

FURTHER INFORMATION

Food Assistance for Assets Programme Guidance Manual (FFA PGM)