Ethiopia impact feb2014

Livestock and Fish Ethiopia small ruminants impact pathways workshop

10-11 February 2014 Information Centre, ILRI Ethiopia, Addis Ababa

---

Workshop on Impact Pathways for the Small Ruminants Value Chains Development in Ethiopia work under the Livestock and Fish, by and for the Poor Program Objectives:

1. Communicate and validate the program’s intervention logic in the development of the Ethiopia Small Ruminants value chains, clearly identifying the roles of different stakeholders in the value chain.
2. Question and clarify the program’s potential for achieving impact on the intended beneficiaries and map out the key risks and assumptions of the program.
3. Begin to lay the building blocks for designing a framework for subsequent monitoring, evaluating and learning of the program.
4. Synthesize the results achieved so far to develop the theories of change for the four components (Animal health, Production, Marketing and institutions, and Capacity building) of the small ruminant value chain in Ethiopia.
5. Refine the theories of change and the underlying assumptions of causality for the four main intervention areas of the small ruminant value chains in Ethiopia.
6. Sketch the impact pathways of the four components with due consideration of practicality, causality, and research/development boundaries.

List of participants

Day one: 10th February 2014

Time	Activity	Responsible
08:30-08:40	Opening remarks
08:40-09:00	Introductions	E. Le Borgne (facilitator)
09:00-09:30	Present context and government development strategy of the Small Ruminants value chains in Ethiopia: challenges, opportunities	B. Shapiro
09:30-10:00	Results of the Value Chain Analysis and previous stakeholder engagement activities ( See presentation)	B. Rischkowsky
10:00-10:30	Questions arising and discussion	Facilitator
10:30-11:00	Coffee Break and poster walk
11:00-11:30	Introduction to the overall process with theories of change and impact pathways for L&F value chains – progress made in other countries ( See presentation)	M. Kidoido
11:30-12:00	Group discussions: Review of presentations and questioning the overall theory of change (for the Ethiopian context) - Clarity of vision and mission - Validity of key assumptions (for Ethiopia) made about changes and causality (Optional) - Practicality of interventions and relevance to outputs - Thoroughness of activities, outputs, outcomes and (intended and unintended) impacts	Facilitator and working groups
12:00-12:30	Plenary: Group presentations (5 minutes each) and commentary by development partners	Facilitator
12:45-13:00	Introduction of the four main groups and group formation for the afternoon group work + brief	B. Rischkowsky/ G. Tesfahun / Facilitator
13:00-14:00	Lunch Break
14:00-16:00	Parallel Group Sessions on Theory of Change
	Group 1 – Animal health
	Group 2 – Production and supply
	Group 3 – Markets and Institutions
	Group 4 – Capacity development
	The groups discuss and present agreed ideas on # What is the cause-and-effect logic that gets us from our resources (people and dollars) to impact? # Where are the gaps or leaps of faith in that logic chain? # What are the most important elements of our interventions’ content and structure? # What assumptions led us to choose these particular intervention elements? # Are there other ways in which we could achieve the desired outcomes? # What is the minimum length of time our beneficiaries need to be engaged to achieve these outcomes? # What else do our beneficiaries need to achieve these outcomes?
15:00-15:20	Coffee break (during group work)
16:00-17:00	Group presentations (15 minutes) as a gallery run Final commentary from the development partners Energy check	Facilitator

---

Day two: 11th February 2014

	Time	Activity	Responsible
	08:30-09:00	Recap of yesterday’s session - see the recap presentation	Girma Kassahun
09:00-10:00		Parallel Group Sessions on Impact Pathway - Visualizing the interdependence...
		Group 1 – Animal health
		Group 2 – Production (Feeds and Genetics)
		Group 3 – Markets and Institutions
		Group 4 – Capacity building
		The groups discuss and present agreed ideas on the updated impact pathway # Who are our beneficiaries? # What benefits do our programs create? # Boundary of our research: what will and won’t we do? # How do we define and measure success? # Are our activities related to our success indicators? # What would make us obsolete? # How shall the impact pathway be sketched? The impact pathway will be presented as a structural diagram.
10:45-11:00		Coffee Break
11:00-12:15		Group presentations (10 minutes each + 5-10' reactions)
12:15-13:00		Plenary discussion on the cohesion of the narrative (theory of change) and the structure (pathway) of the impact of the small-ruminant value chain interventions
13:00-14:00		Lunch
14:00-15:30		Visualizing the interdependence of the four components of the SRVC and teasing out blocks to monitor the value chain along the way
15:30-15:45		Coffee break
15:45-16:30		Deciding on first actions / Action planning for: * Finalizing a framework document for the value chain system * Setting up a value chain system platform * Following up on individual and collective commitments and spreading the word around
16:30-17:00.		Wrap-up and close	Michael Kidoido, Girma Kassahu

---

Meeting notes

Q: Limiting analysis to present values - have you done any social investment analysis? Have you broken down levels? A: It is a social analysis. It's why it's taken us so long - we do this analysis on all household types. We're seeing a move from lowlands to midlands. Q: Numbers (deficit for meat and milk) are astounding - what are your key assumptions on international trade? A: This is pre-trade. We are doing projections of production and consumption. To analyse this we assume that prices are constant over a period. That's a limitation of the analysis. Ethiopia shouldn't be exporting meat to get foreign exchange. It would be better off to meet its domestic demand. Re: elasticities we use the IFPRI figure and triangulate them. Q: On the contribution of livestock etc. there was a similar study. How do your figures compare? A: We had that information when doing comparison. They were also using FAO/IGAD figures. These are the new figures (2013). Livestock is important but the rest of the economy is growing, fast, so we need to improve productivity of this sector,.

Discussion around presentation by Barbara Rischkowsky

See presentation by Barbara

• Q: Key interventions - nothing on breeds and breeding - are stakeholders satisfied with the breeds/breeding they have?

A: If you talk to farmers they will tell you they want better animals (except pastoralists). They don't have a selection process in place esp. for small ruminants. We try to look at animal performance analysis to understand shortcomings of breeds. Animal health has a lot of problems and is tackled by different people.

• Q: One of the big constraints is around training of ag production vets.

A: The problem is not so much about the skills of vet folks but they don't want to go to the areas where you need them and there's a problem with the overall organization. There might be an issue with the federal system (different regimes in different areas). Private sector is coming up patchily... GoE has 30+ schools and the quality is not as good as it used to be... But it's improving year by year... Addis Ababa Uni etc. are fairly good...

• Q; How are you able to reach the vision? It focuses on production but also on gathering evidence on performance of other actors... How are you able to engage policy-makers etc.

A: Animal health is not just about production e.g. it covers delivery and thus policy issues. The group discussing this has to deal with it in a broad sense... Banning of backyard slaughter was mentioned to improve food safety etc. but it has a lot of implications for the informal trading etc. This animal health issue is not just about production.

• Q: Needs-based capacity building - is it training on feeds, health, processing?

A: What came up was the demand for some training e.g. farmers who realize they know some things but want some capacity around better use of feed resources, better selection strategies for animals, better housening for fattening etc. Some of that work may not be our work but has to be taken into account. We mentioned 'needs-based' because we need to understand these needs.

• Q: Can you talk about what happened in the multi-stakeholder workshops: who was there and what was the nature of the conversations?

A: We had researchers, bureaus of agriculture, etc. who is active (from our VC analysis). And they presented their finding and we had discussions about VC findings etc. ending up with an agreed list of constraints and possible interventions, who would do them etc. Research or development interventions? * Did anyone commit themselves? ' Yes in relation with budget for vet services, Bureau of Agric for Amhara said they were working on this and had budget for this... Market information systems are available in Tigray... Feedback is not there always.

• Q: Constraints you mentioned have been there for the last 30 years. When it comes to intervention strategies, I'm always puzzled why animal health is #1 constraint, as opposed to feed resources... Why bother feeding a sick animal? We need a primary intervention on quality feeds. As for livestock market information, it's the most exaggerated problem. The markets and their performances don't change.

A: This (feeding) is #1. You need feeding supply that helps your health problem but if you have epidemics e.g. PPR your animals will be affected anyway and so your market. As re: market information, there's different prices paid to different markets so animals can go to different markets. Training system yes but there's such low supply to the market. These priorities were made for different sites etc. Market information is not about prices only. It's about the price producers see and the one consumers pay. The price determination is not known. People come to the market 3-4 times to get the pricing structure.

Presentation by Michael Kidoido (and discussion)

See the presentation by Michael.

• Q: Some people are developing a gender strategy - how does it get integrated in this impact pathway? Can we integrate these?
• A: We go back to steps and ensure that gender informs them... The gender impact pathway has to be effective.
• Q: I'm interested by this but change isn't a theory, it's practical. We're trying to influence choices. I'm not seeing this reflected in this... Why are people making those choices?

A: The context allows multiple pathways to come to Rome. What is involved in the complexity we're dealing with? We have to think about a question that underpins the ToC: How is change happening? It might be a useful thing in this workshop to ask how change is happening...

• Comment: we've identified issues in the VC and we've indicated ways that these should implement to address those issues... Those interventions were selected on the basis of how this informs...

Counter-comment: We had a small preparatory workshop last year and what was apparent there was that discussing impact pathways overall it becomes very vague. If we take the major intervention areas, we have to understand who comes in and what concrete steps we have to follow to reach our impact - what knowledge do we need? This make more sense. The IPs have to come together to provide the bigger picture...

(Then the participants reflected around each table about: a) how clear and relevant the mission statement [In 2020 we see poor men and women enjoying increased levels of production, income and nutritious consumption from effective development of sustainable small ruminant value chains] is, b) how relevant and good the assumptions and risks are and c) how the overall program impact pathway/theory of change makes sense or not).

Presentations from group work on vision, assumptions and program ToC/IP

Visions

(Group 1):

• It sounds general (need to be specific)
• The level of production should be indicated (from which level to what level)
• The words 'effective' and 'sustainable' should be used in the following manner: "sustainable development of effective VCA"
• Rather than "poor women and men" --> 'poor households'

(Group 3)

• Focus on the transition from the poor: "In 2020 we see a transition of households__ into __improved levels of production, income, nutrition and wellbeing from effective development of sustainable SRVCs"
• Move from production to productivity
• Production focuses too much on one side
• Sustainable development of effective VCA
• A vision is not quantified - How do we quantify that progress?

(Group 4)

• "We see a vibrant small ruminant value chain that delivers more affordable food, better nutrition and sustainable income for S/H farmers by 2020"
• Q: We focus on 2020 - is it in line with when the program ends or for the whole livestock program? Linking a vision with development VCs takes time no less than 5 years. Do we see this coming up?
• A: The current phase will be extended to 2016 but there's clearly a second phase from 2017-2019 and beyond it's uncertain... Until end of 2019 the program will continue.

Assumptions

(Group 1)

• Prioritization should not be ambiguous: is it prioritization of issues or interventions?
• Can we intensify market orientation through increasing production only?
• Market orientation can be tackled in various ways, e.g. through awareness creation, attitude change, reducing cash shortage etc.
• Sustainable should be incorporated into bullet #5 (proper value chains)

(Group 2)

• Bullet point #4 is not just about intensification of production e.g. also cultural and other factors... --> Change it to "intensification of the SR production will increase participation of smallholders to the market"
• Sustainable should be added to bullet #5 (pro-poor value chains)
• Delete 'failure to take advantage of international markets' from the list of risks...

(Group 3): Emphasis on various aspects (in red)

• #1 ok
• #2: Instead of 'proof at scale' use 'impact at scale'
• #3: Instead of global public goods, we want 'lessons'
• #4: ... "would intensify their production to respond to market opportunities"
• #5: remove 'sufficient'
• #6: "The poor will ... if "access to products improves". Access is a better word than availability.
• #7: "For the program to succeed, it should"... generate interest for investment and buy-in --> generate interest
• #8: ... right partners "facilitates" (not 'ensures')
• #9: The program "should" generate "more than" evidence - we should have e.g. more policy advocacy and we should provide more positive inputs, a more positive vision

(Group 4) Our starting point: Assumptions are not about the program but research assumptions

• Be explicit on the enabling environment beyond the value chain
• Prioritization is contradictory to the value chain. This is the language of a manager and implies control. The VC is a complex system that is not manageable. We need to use a more emergent approach that tracks evidence over time
• Localized work will contribute to generate regional + global public goods
• Intensification and commercialization: the statement is too push and not enough pull. Add: 'if there is a market pull'.
• Replace "pro-poor" with smallholders
• #6 Only likely if other needs are met! e.g. Income increase. Perhaps rephrase...
• #7 Inshallah - but not yet!
• #8 Agree
• #9 Rephrase: "Policy makers listen to the program"

All of us had the same understanding about who the target group is. Which households are we targeting here? Are we talking about the same ones? ==> There is quite a range of smallholder farmers involved. The three main systems are targeted (productive, lowlands with climate risks and HHs in rainfall deficient areas)... The models we are targeting are in different areas... ==> We are not ignoring poor / pro-poor... Perhaps add an assumption #10 about the fact that working on smallholders we are focusing on poverty alleviation... We have different ideas about assumptions - are research assumptions really going to be tested? Yes we are onto developing a proof of concept... Assumptions and risks may not apply to all communities or areas...

Comments on the general program pathways: The issue of sustainability of NRM should be mentioned in the vision. Values and norms of program outputs within value chains.

Synthesis of the comments on assumptions:

1. Ok
2. Prioritization of issues or interventions? Prioritization is contradictory to the value chain. This is the language of a manager and implies control. The VC is a complex system that is not manageable. We need to use a more emergent approach that tracks evidence over time. Use "Impact at scale" instead of "proof at scale"?
3. Use "will contribute to generate" instead of "generates". Focus on "lessons" instead of "global public goods"
4. Perhaps rephrase as "would intensify their production to respond to market opportunities". Actually, can we intensify market orientation through increasing production only? Market orientation can be tackled in various ways, e.g. through awareness creation, attitude change, reducing cash shortage etc. Change it to "intensification of the SR production will increase participation of smallholders to the market". Add "and commercializing" next to "intensifiying"
5. Include 'sustainable' and remove 'sufficient'. Replace "pro-poor" with "smallholders"
6. Use "access" instead of "availability". This is only likely if other needs are met! e.g. Income increase.
7. Add "for investment" before "and buy-in"
8. Use "facilitates" instead of "ensures" - otherwise ok
9. Use "The program should generate more than evidence" Rephrase the sentence to "Policy makers listen to the program"

Perhaps add an assumption #10 about the fact that working on smallholders we are focusing on poverty alleviation... And generally we need to be explicit on the enabling environment beyond the value chain...

Recap from day 1

see the recap presentation

Presentations by working groups on the four areas

(All participants worked on the same 7 questions [What is the cause-and-effect logic that gets us from our resources (people and dollars) to impact? Where are the gaps or leaps of faith in that logic chain? What are the most important elements of our interventions’ content and structure? What assumptions led us to choose these particular intervention elements? Are there other ways in which we could achieve the desired outcomes? What is the minimum length of time our beneficiaries need to be engaged to achieve these outcomes? What else do our beneficiaries need to achieve these outcomes?] for either of the four groups: Animal health, production and supply, markets and institutions, capacity development).

Access to animal health products and services

• Not a lack of qualified people
• Lack of effective distribution channels
• Quality of end product (cold chain / adulteration)
• Regular programs (vaccinations, anthelminthics)
• Abattoir services
• CRP services: Provide evidence/data for policy makers (chances of success? Too value chain specific?)

New / improved technologies

• Themostable vaccines
• Combination PPR/SG?
• CCPP
• Haemonchus
• Coenurosis
• B Melitensis
• Cost / benefit?

Epidemiology diagnostic

• Validate P.E. / surveys

Grey literature (Unis have a lot, gov'ts don't use much of it) Expensive, time-limited, screen/targeted Accuracy (local content)

• Disease dynamics: critical aspects of CRP (demand-driven research)

Q&A:

• Q: How do we translate that into a manageable program which uses the critical concepts? How much do we need to collect existing information?

A: It may be beyond the CRP to work on this because it's not just about GPGs but there's our impact pathway.

• Q: Comment: Is there a lesson from the SIDAI group?

A: It's going well.

Production and supply

See group presentation

Q&A:

• On welfare issues, farmers don't have access to credit so they can't improve transportation etc. so add this... Even with credit they will overload the vehicles.
• Climate (change) can affect transportation issues
• Build forage and conservation into SLM and linking with feeding - perhaps intensify land use
• Not enough specificity

Markets and institutions

Problem context:

• Farmers are not market-oriented
• Seasonality of supply & demand
• Quality and quantity issues
• Poor delivery of inputs and services
• Poor understanding of the market structure
• Coops / groups not delivering what is expected by the members
• Farmers not accessing profitable markets

Interventions:

• Markets and institutions piloting innovative institutions to enhance market participation
• Creating and building capacity of livestock input marketing systems
• Provide evidence of market integration and price volatility

Outputs:

• Innovative institutional arrangements for market participation
• ...

Outcomes:

• Increased market participation (farmers)
• Increased delivery and access to livestock inputs and services
• Farmers enabled to make informed livestock market decisions

Impacts: Increased income, increased access to nutritious ... for poor households...

Assumptions:

• SR VC actors are willing and ready to take ... the innovative arrangements
• Resources are available
• Existing institutions have the capacity

Q&A:

• Q: Farmers are not market-oriented: is it true?

A: They are not when they don't have the opportunity to do so. There are fewer opportunities for them to access the market. Farmers produce food for the family first, so they are subsistence-oriented... There's a difference between marketable surplus and market surplus.

Capacity development

See the group presentation

Q&A:

• Q: Farmers not capable of planning but in fact there are fattening programs etc. and farmers in mid-lands are engaged in cattle-fattening. They do that for camels. There is a sense of business planning among farmers.

A: We meant that to get money requires a business plan and that level is mostly not around for farmers.

• Farmer to farmer visits ok but institutions - the business should be from slow to fast farmers -

It would be a design issue. Farmer to farmer extension. Farmers can share knowledge and skills. It can be done in the same kebele/woreda etc. Farmers can learn on their own.

• Very good idea to introduce business plan etc. MFIs also require business planning (extension services are also trained on this)... Strengthening.
• Q: On market information systems, how are we doing on that?

A: There is a farmer conference in Kigali and one of the presenters was saying that there are more people with a smartphone and a toothbrush. We are using an SMS app but there is an institutional challenge.

• Your assumption should be a fact...
• We need to know the issue of the capacity group for our markets group...

337x447px

Feedback received Most comments accepted. Overlaps:

• Link with AH: disease resistant / tolerant traits
• CapDev will work on improving extension service function
• CapDev will focus on building facilitation skills

Gaps:

• I see nor farmer voice here!
•  ??? (one very unclear card on the picture)???
• Nutrition needs to be stated amongst the outcomes
• Regulations: by whom?
• Gender is not included - we consider everything includes danger... specify gender-sensitive issues
• The adoption process is not explicitly indicated - how to get from evidence to adoption?
• Production technology alone cannot lead to attitude change (e.g. market information systems) - access to profitable markets is required
• How to develop incentives for traders?
• Include health in... ?
• Major comment to clearly put the methodology and how to achieve outputs etc.
• Focus on improving infrastructure e.g. transportation, tax-free importation should be encouraged by Gov't
• Change in animal transportation needs policy change to provide a duty free import of animal transportation trucks
• Missing institutions e.g. include regulation etc.
• Needs more detail on exactly what and how you will act

368x485px

374x482px

Animal health

Read the final write up

Feedback received Overlaps:

• Policy change from extension side also. Input delivery markets should be related to markets/institutions...
• Cap Dev hubs want to engage vet service providers
• Input delivery system should be linked to markets and institutions
• Marketing: privatization of vet services overlaps with the creation and capacitation of animal inputs / services and marketing system

Gaps:

• Gender - more access to women (e.g. privatization) in terms of financial and other benefits
• Measurement: measure delivered services etc. Measure morbidity and mortality of animals with privatized or public vet services
• Strengthen community animal health workers
• Beneficiaries have to be included
• Any human health benefit (zoonoses, meat quality)?
• Some interventions have to be included beyond technical solutions e.g. improve delivery system of vaccines and drugs to remote areas - thermostable PPRI
• What is the problem with CCPP vaccine production?
• Do you need a focus on drug demand system from farmers?
• More activities are delivered by public service (limited in number) - this needs to be improved
• Clearly identify partners and who does what

Markets and institutions

Read the final write-up Feedback received Overlaps:

• Outcomes overlap with production and supply group
• Overlap with the hub proposal of the Capacity Development group
• One activity (central bottom on picture) overlaps with CD group
• Developing participatory approaches with CD
• Animal health: state role research institutions separately
  284x451px

560px

289x378px288x379px

406x503px

Gaps:

• Animal health: Vet service ?? (drug) use
• Gender and equity to include: Identify indicators to measure success and classify gender
• Incorporate 'inside household' women / children
• Engage capacity dev organizations (e.g. ACDI/VOCA, SNV)
• Define capacity building activities - be participatory from the start
• Links and overlaps: intervention on capacity development - hub with capacity development
• Suggest you to engage capacity dev't organisations beyond research institutes! e.g. NGOs, local providers
• How to measure additional farm income - increased access to and control of resources by women

Capacity development

Read the final write-up Feedback received Overlaps:

• Serves all
• Markets and institutions overlaps e.g. interventions, innovative institutional arrangements to increase market participation

Gaps:

• Applicability of business - it's not just capacity development. It's also about creating markets and strengthening institutions so it can serve all institutions
• The picture was taken to show some service providers come in and some are excluded from this picture. Is it really applicable for small ruminants? It's good to review this and undertake some lessons from other countries and see if the type of models to be developed/produced/strengthened can be adapted for local circumstances.
• AI not applicable for small ruminants. Animal health services in hub activities
• Private extension services: no private extension service. It's being provided but it's very limited not because of prices but because it's integrated in other activities e.g. quality requirements.

Overall feedback

• Good to mention business hubs - a lot of things we mention here are being done by hubs though the hub seems not to be liked.
• At what level do you set up these exchange / hub models etc.? At district level? How do you operationalize them?

The hub is a company that provides services, it's not a learning platform. It's in Uganda, India etc. The implementation might not be easy... It might yet be successful...

Collective action and individual commitments

General discussion on commitments etc.

• No farmer, no extension agent, livestock trader etc. - though they were invited. We have to identify key actors.
• An action plan is required
• Have a conversation in Amharic?
• Multi-stakeholder platforms: SNV has regional
• This is not just about meeting face to face but also virtually (e.g. on the Livestock & Fish Yammer network) to share e.g. outputs from this workshop
• It would be great to have a pub-like structure where people can just turn up and discuss anything - or do we want a more structured forum?
• Key issues are thus to define the objectives of continuing this conversation, a clear action plan in relation, identify who should participate (a fairly heterogeneous group), the frequency of conversations,

Individual commitments...

Animal health

• Essayas Gelaye: technology transfer on thermostable and combined vaccine development and production
• Aklilu Feleke: Epidemiological study (esp. on small ruminants brucellosis)
• Barbara Szonyi: Follow up on proposed research ideas concerning the most relevant animal diseases affecting productivity

Production and supply

• Yayneshet: Improved forage development
• Abdi Hassan: I'm going to contribute at the SRVC to make it benchmark survey for market-oriented information as well as controlled mating and enable the SH farmers to reach (agric) livelihood
• Tesfaye Tadesse: On behalf of OARI I'm working on the community-based sheep breeding at Horro. Recently I've participated in benchmarking survey of this VCA at Horro
• Melese Yilma (SARI): To Doyogena sheep breed improvement (??) I would like to take part. Improve health performance. Work to come out health vs. trait for animal selection
• Annet Mulema: Producing feeding and breeding - could support integration of gender to refine the pathway and assessment of interventions.
• Aynalem Haile: Breeding.
• Mengistu Regassa: I want to engage in: breeding characterization, breeding goal definition, designing breeding program.
• Tesfaye Getachew: Interested in designing breeding program

Markets and institutions

• Girma T. Kassie: Very interested
• Getachew Legese: I would like to be part of the analysis of market integration
• Annet Mulema: Support capacity building in market identification and developing marketing systems
• Michael: Supporting market analysis studies

Capacity development

• Adebabay: Improving the capacity of extension services & farmer groups
• Annet Mulema: Capacity development interventions especially on gender awareness
• (Dan??): I would like to conduct assessment in grassroots LIVIL in capacity building in order to forward ideas that help to improve the effectiveness of the efforts
• Aynalem Haile: Capacity development at District (DLT?) level
• Girma T. Kassie: Interested! (generally)
• Stuart Worsley: I would like to offer support to the process of pulling together a cross agency working group to design a business hub model for testing
• Stuart Worsley: I would like to join in the process of defining great farmer participatory agricultural extension services

Closing and next steps

Michael Thank you all for coming and engaging. We have bridged a number of gaps. Next steps are:

• To document this - there will be a workshop report to be shared with all participants and partners.
• We will also pull out the impact pathways and narratives that support the work.
• Based on those we will continue learning during the implementation of the program.
• The workshop report is one thing but thinking about packaging this further, we had very intensive working groups. It would be nice to come back with these working groups to synthesize the work and see if it makes sense. We need to package these for the Ethiopia VC but it'd be great to do this with you as a peer support group / peer reviewers. Perhaps in the groups there could be people working on this... We need to work on a common format and we have to harmonize these different things.
• The rest of the program is also concerned - we need to check our planned activities against what came up here. That is very important as we owe our communities some practical things. We will thus use this information to look at the intervention logic and perhaps some good new ideas will come up. We will likely end up with consolidated action plans out of this and we might come back to you for some inputs.

Thank you very much for coming here and for the engagement.

Agreed activities: File:ethiopia_impact_feb2014_AgreedActivities.docx