Technologies group

Hypothesis – a few thoughts Generally ok but might need additional explanation in a sub- paragraph How to test? What would be control sites – sites without interventions or only single component interventions? Further explanatory text covering: – Definition of what we mean by productivity – crop, livestock or system productivity? Probably systems productivity but what is a system? Crop/livestock/trees? – What is meant by environmental management and how do we tackle this at different scales: farm, field, watershed. – Should we select priority technologies to work on to ensure focus? – Hypothesis rather vague at the moment e.g. What do we mean by “opportunity”? Maybe some quantification needed. – Although this hypothesis is about technology, we can’t ignore gender and NRM when testing it.

More thoughts on hypothesis Target systems – This project would probably focus on “Productive Ethiopia” because of the existing potential for intensification. In degraded areas one must first sort out NRM – The focus of this project is farm level productivity but needs to consider higher scales e.g. To deal with market issue and also to ensure envtal sustainability – Difficult to choose target systems until sites have been defined – chicken and egg

Objectives/ outputs - issues Objective rather long-winded – might need to be split – Or include additional explanatory notes Outputs – Hierarchy of objectives, outputs, activities etc not clear – One way of thinking about it is: Outputs: options developed considering systems issues (institutions, NRM, gender, HIV) Outcomes: these options adopted by farmers Impact: changes in income and livelihoods

Objective/outputs – more issues NRM issues not sufficiently considered in outputs/activities No specific livestock-related outputs (mostly on feed) No explicit tree/shrub related outputs/ activities

Quick wins Some scepticism – timescale means they could be superficial and cause more harm than good. Would need to be located in existing projects selected from long list of 70 projects developed yesterday What do we measure for “quick wins” – cash in pocket, farmer interest, creating ownership in national system

Quick wins Some options – Production/dissemination of improved crop/fodder seeds – Planting trees/shrubs for fodder – Planting fruit trees – Water harvesting techniques – Identification of best bet practices for quick wins – Linking farmers to markets – Selection systems for livestock Overall aim would be to combine various options as “proof of concept”

Quick wins - approaches Primary sites (for longer project) – select with a full process Secondary sites (for quick wins) – existing projects Extract lessons from existing projects from secondary sites to inform design of work in primary sites. Quick wins should address major Ethiopian Highlands issues: low productivity, poorly distributed rainfall, soil degradation etc.

Quick wins - approaches Design mechanism for identifying projects for quick wins Define selection criteria – Successes from systems projects – Combine technologies from individual crop and livestock projects – High potential for outscaling