Technologies for intensification in SW Uganda ... - Foodnet - cgiar

3. Assessment Framework
3.1 Proposed assessment method
In this section, we describe the framework that was developed to evaluate technologies. The
framework needed to encompass the following:
1. Criteria pertaining to the technology’s effects on key objectives of farmers and society
2. Assessment of the current and potential status of the technology in the southwest
3. Favorable and unfavorable factors in scaling up the adoption of the technology
As a first step in identifying criteria to be used in assessing “win-win” technologies, the ICRAF
Integrated Natural Resource Management (INRM) research framework was consulted. The
framework emphasizes the importance of assessing potential or actual interventions (of which
technologies are one) in terms of their effect on productivity, income/poverty reduction, and
environmental resilience (see Figure 3.1).
The team assumed that “win-win” technologies must provide beneficial impacts on the
environment as one “win” and then on either productivity or income/poverty reduction to produce
the other “win”. Within each of the three broad categories of impacts, the team then identified a
relatively large number of criteria. These can be shown in Table 3.1. This served as the initial
guide to collecting information pertaining to the impacts of technologies.
However, after two days in the field it became clear that the indicators in the table were much too
ambitious for the breadth and rigor of the data available. Quantitative data were simply not
available except in rare occasions, such as the case where international research centers worked
with local authorities and had well-established research programmes in the region (CIP’s research
on potatoes). This is not to say that such data is not important – on the contrary, we believe that
collecting data on these variables and indicators is very important. Such monitoring/impact
assessment should be given some priority for research centers and as well any new development
projects for the region. But such an undertaking was not feasible for this rapid assessment.
The team maintained that the broad areas of productivity, income/poverty reduction, and
environmental sustainability were still valid, but that ways of integrating various forms of
evidence, mostly qualitative types, would need to be found. For example, it was necessary to
broaden the scope of certain indicators so that widely varying types of information on related
themes could be compared across different types of technologies.
The assessment of “win-win” technologies further requires evidence as to the current or future
potential of widespread adoption. The current status was easy to judge given that the team toured
the southwest and was able to meet with numerous key informants, including the agricultural
extension teams at the district level. The future potential was not easy to assess. This depends on
the feasibility of the technology at the farm or community level (e.g. labor requirements), on
larger institutional requirements to disseminate information, materials, or seed, as well as on
available markets and prices that would generate large-scale demand for adoption.
The result of these deliberations was the technology evaluation matrix presented in Table 3.2.
The columns are: description, status, soil impact, bio-diversity, productivity, income, feasibility,
concerns, and requirements.
24