Addis Feedback from working groups

Sustainable intensification of crop-livestock systems to improve food security and farm income diversification in the Ethiopian highlands Project Design Workshop 30 January - 2 February 2012, Addis Ababa Ethiopia

Feedback from working groups on the hypotheses, goals/purpose

This workshop provides an opportunity for a broad group of important stakeholders to both learn about the project plans and to share their views on expectations from and opportunities for synergies with the project (days 1 and 2) and for the core project team to finalize the project details (days 3 and 4).

---

Pathways group (Alexander, Bruno)

Powerpoint presentation:

REVISED Hypothesis: Interventions intended to achieve sustainable intensification of smallholder crop-livestock systems are conditioned by the desired outcomes, initial conditions and external drivers, all of which express themselves at different scales (HH, village, region). These factors furthermore constrain possible trajectories between low and high levels of sustainability and intensification .

• Desired outcomes: for smallholder crop-livestock systems should be determined through the involvement of multiple stakeholders and should include gender and nutrition via a visioning exercise for 15-20 years.
• Initial conditions: specific sub-systems (agroecological & socioeconomic) and levels and trends of sustainability and intensification
• External drivers include: climate change and variability, local and global markets and access, policy environment, population growth, health, education, urbanization.

About the picture this group drew... We thought we were a bit conceptual but then again it's good to start with concepts and zoom in on practical aspects. On the X axis here you have sustainability indicators and on the Y axis, intensification (which can be land, labour, water productivity or any combination thereof). Then wherever you are, you can design a pathway that remains low on intensification but high on sustainability. Another pathway could be to move from low intensification to high intensification. There are other models that are high on intensification but low on sustainability (linked to markets etc.); perhaps we want to keep them high on both axes or just increase sustainability. There are direct and indirect pathways. e.g. from low-low to high-high you can go directly or you can use an indirect route (e.g. intensification with market access) and not care about environment first and then include payment for ecoservices and increase sustainability. Our timeframe is 15-20 years.

Reactions:

• Why 15-20 years? --> It's a more realistic timeframe;
• What is the 'index' you're talking about? --> an indicator, and it is researchable; The index could be a multi-input measurement system.
• We can't really look at those indicators in 15-20 years, we need to look at the macro-economics of Ethiopian highlands --> Yes that's why it's important to have this visioning exercise (and keep it broad);
• A huge amount of work has gone into this in the past but there must be metrics for certain kinds of environmental services (e.g. erosion) and benchmarks that can help us measure --> Yes but we need to put metrics on that or we won't be able to talk about sustainability.
• The complexity of this picture requires technological sustainability too.

Site selection group (An)

Powerpoint presentation: File:Site selection.pptx

1. Decide who will do the site selection
2. Decide on criteria to be used in the different steps
3. Define target zone (wheat systems, AGP woredas)
4. Spatial stratification and selection sets of suitable sites (sub-systems, sustainability index, intensification index)
5. Validation
6. Scoring of potential sites (representativeness, out-scaling potential, synergies with ongoing work/CRPs, sthg different, potential for impact, applicable and adaptable technologies, human capacity, engagement with local communities, presence of extension services, existing farmer organisations/CBOs etc.
7. Agreement on final set of sites
8. Start implementation of the project

During the next few days?

• List and select early wins
• Rough delineation and stratification of target zones
• Map potential early sites
• Quick scoring

Reactions/comments:

• In Tamale we projected work in the coming months, not years --> We didn't involve much consultation in West Africa so we had a few dimensions e.g. water availability, population growth etc. so certain parameters here were not talked about. We have to examine the priority sites by the GoE based on the list of sites that comes out of our analytical/conceptual approach here. <\ we also need to potentially add sites in future years. /> For quick wins, we have to think
• What is the potential for linking with private sector, market, supply etc.? --> to be integrated indeed.
• Some studies around potential areas (e.g. from AGP), would it help to go back to those sites 2-3 years after intervention to see how it could inform us? --> Yes we can!
• Would the link with the private sector not be included with the intensification index? --> Access to extension etc. could well be fed into that.
• In West Africa, there was a convergence on a couple of areas but there's a clear focus on environmental aspects of the work. What's striking here is that on the sustainability index, are we talking about characterizing certain environments?

Technology group (Alan)

Powerpoint presentation: File:Technologies group feedback.pptx Hypothesis:

• Difficult to test because it's vague. But needs additional explnations in sub-paragraph
•  ???
• Target systems: this project would probably focus on 'productive Ethipia' because eof the potential for SI. In degraded areas one must first sort out NRM; Farm level productivity is also important here and it's difficult to choose target systems.
• Objectives/outputs: objectives need to be split (or include explanatory notes)? Confusing hierarchy of outputs;
• Quick wins: skepticism about the short-time scale. It might cause more harm than good. But we could also start with the 70+ projects and identify some successes from those; What do we mean by quick wins: cash in pocket, farmer interest etc.? Various options. Approaches to follow: primary (for longer project) with full process and secondary sites, and extract lessons; design mechanisms to identify quick wins: success from existing systems projects, combine tech from individual crop and livestock projects, high potential for outscaling.

Reactions

• Very clear presentation. Selection criteria for quick wins includes looking at existing successful initiatives. Could there be any quick wins on advising some national initiatives? --> It's difficult to influence governmental programs if they're not involved in the design or this project or others.

Tradeoffs group (Alastair, Diego)

• This is also about synergies, not just tradeoffs.
• We changed our hypothesis: the evaluation of tradeoffs and synergies
• We want to look at livelihood and environmental dimensions with substantial benefits to women and children
• Tradeoffs and synergies we looked at:

Short/Long term - sustainability means you have to make money this year to be around next year. Farm vs. community High yield vs. high biomass Feeding vs. soil productivity - Feeding biomass vs. productivity; grains are for farmers, residues are for soil. Crops for market vs. food security;

• Quick wins here are about an evaluation of trade-offs and synergies:

Have a farmer perspective (not just scientists); Tap into best practices from other projects - don't reinvent the wheel; Not one approach but mix of qualitative and quantitative; Something practical (e.g. spreadsheet format) to identify strengths and gaps of particular technologies; Diagnostic feedback Linked with M&E and impact indicators too We can develop a robust tool by the end of 2012, tested at action sites.

• Relevant partners:

Many projects are dealing with this. We need meta-data of what all these 70 projects are doing to assess most relevant partners. CRSPs, NARS projects, CGIAR impact assessment, SLP project, SANREM etc.

Connecting group (Jerry)

• Critical aspect for Ethiopia. In West Africa the main difference was that the administrative levels are fewer to connect with and require less approval to get traction than in Ethiopia. Change of hypothesis here too. A lot of these hypotheses are actually assumptions.
• Our suggested revised hypothesis is: institutional innovations and options at all relevant administration levels that build and enhance... (bonding, bridging)...
• Objective: to integrate an effective strategy for institutional engagement at relevant administrative levels that enable.support SI R&D. Project objectives (including gender, nutrition, health)...
• Activities:

Characterize/ inventory of engagement strategies (e.g. community activities to engage them there) for various specific stakeholders (e.g. AGP etc.) Understand how all institutions are working at different admin levels e.g. water management might work at a different admin and expertise level than another issue. It requires solid understanding and well-designed engagement strategy. Figure out how to integrate engagement strategy with project itself; Engagement with all relevant partners/activities e.g. donor community, NGOs, private sector etc. not just public.

• Outputs?

Innovation platforms to catalyse activities and results that we want and promote intersections with relevant partners (government, private sector, various admin levels, int'l) Requires well-designed comms platforms and continuous comms up and down those levels - at relevant and multiple levels A SI R&D project aligned, coordinated and integrated with other relevant partners and activities.

• Quick/early wins:

Didn't really fit this group yet... Formalization & approval of project by relevant admin levels (woreda, regional) & USAid mission, MoA. Survey of modes of engagement (assessment); Strengthened existing platforms. One agreement at regional and woreda level through specific processes to get project recognised and fitting within national GoE programs and ensure alignment with USAid mission. Survey of modes of engagement could be useful: formal processes, informal processes. Based on that survey and better comms, we can help strengthen existing comms activities.

• Relevant partners:

Comments/observations:

• Nothing mentioned about different admin levels in West Africa.

'Purpose of the project' group (Diego)

• How far is the project going? Dissemination? List of options?
• Extent of the project?
• The purpose? we listed 4 things to include in it:

Enabling (integrated) opportunities; Sustainable Intensification; Linkage between research and development; Overall goal is to contribute to enhance production etc. but the focus should be on how to achieve this?

• The goal we suggest:

Comments/questions:

• To what extent can you replicate the West Africa purpose etc.? --> We hope indeed to combine the higher level objectives and goals to have an over-arching template across the three systems. We could achieve that quickly in the next 2 days. In West Africa we went from a convoluted template to a very concise and refined template.
• The big 'impact' numbers, we are precisely on the link between research and development. It will not come from the research.