Dear Dinusha Randimal,

In my opinion, the minimum research period in order to achieve a high level of objectivity and minimize research errors should be set at several growing seasons of crops grown in these greenhouses. In order to precisely determine the number of growing seasons, various aspects of climatic seasonality, cycles of cultivation and breeding of specific species of crops and livestock, as well as business and economic cycles should be taken into account. If the growing seasons of cultivated plants coincide with the periods of years, the years may be divided into specific seasons as a unit of periods on a multi-annual scale. Precise definition of the minimum number of years should take into account all relevant cycles mentioned above, so that the longest-lasting, multi-year cycles are taken into account at least to a minimum extent, i.e. single full periods of specific cycles. The longest-lasting cycles of vegetation, business cycle, breeding, climate, economic etc., included in the research, may determine the minimum scope of the research duration.

Best regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Impact assessment process requires a certain period of time frame to be effective and acceptable. And this obviously depends on the context and varies from situation to situation.

Therefore, the context should be analysed along with detailed tagging with the span of the greenhouse, plant catalogues, climate conditions of the location concerned, etc.

A 2-3 years window is very crucial to get the initial results of any livelihoods related initiative.. Then and only we should ask questions related with impact.

This is an almost impossible question, especially if you want the impact on livelihoods. You may be able to measure the production effect in the greenhouse, but for a livelihood you step into the socio-economic world of the farmer and his/her family. A newborn child may have more effect than what is going on in the greenhouse.

THE KEY IS IN THE FRAMING OF THE QUESTION.