FGD using LC tool-Kenya ICRAF/KALRO (Maurice/Irene/Ingrid) LEGUMECHOICE TECHNICAL MEETING 15-16th June, 2015. DUDUVILLE CAMPUS ICIPE KASARANI, NAIROBI, KENYA.

Outline Demand for legumes-gender, typology Pair wise ranking by gender Constraints for the community Concerns on the tool Challenges experienced

Demand for legume functions in Kitutu Food-income-feed & soil fertility -erosion control - fuel . Food is the most demanded for both genders and across resource endowments. Feed is highly demanded because farmers keep dairy cows

Demand for legume functions

Priorities for functions based on gender in Kitutu Female: Food-feed & income-fuel -erosion control & soil fertility. Male: Food-income-soil fertility-erosion control-feed-fuel

Demand for functions-Resource Endowment High resource: Food-erosion control & fuel-income-soil fertility-feed. Medium: Food-feed/income-soil fertility-erosion control-fuel Low: Food-income-soil fertility-feed- erosion control - fuel

Constraints to legumes in Kitutu Inputs and services-markets-knowledge & seeds-labour-water-land Despite the small land holdings, farmers do not view this as a challenge. Water is a perceived to be a challenge to legume production due to unpredictability Too much rain destroys legume in fields i.e. common bean

Pairwise ranking- Kitutu Men: Soil fertility- erosion control- food- feed & income-fuel Women: Food-feed-erosion control-income-soil fertility-fuel Average: Food- erosion control- soil fertility-feed-income-fuel Fuel was least demanded for both gender

Possible interventions-Kitutu Pigeon pea PGL 1 Lupins SGL 1 Field pea SGL 2 Climbing beans PGL 1 Figures were arrived at by subtracting the constraints value from the function scores

Nyaribari Chache Constraints Inputs and services-knowledge-seeds-land- markets- labour-water Small land holdings viewed as a challenge here Water is the least challenge . The area receives adequate rainfall throughout the year

Pairwise ranking-Nyaribari Women: Food-feed-income/erosion control /soil fertility-fuel Men: food/income- Soil fertility/fuel- feed- erosion control

Demand for legume functions-Nyaribari General: Food- income- feed- soil fertility- erosion control- fuel Men: food- income- feed- Soil fertility- erosion control- fuel Women: Food- income- feed- soil fertility- erosion control -fuel Women are more keen on feed than men High resource: Food- income- feed- soil fertility- erosion control -fuel Medium: Food- income- feed- fuel- soil fertility- erosion control Low: Food- income- soil fertility- feed- erosion control -fuel

Possible interventions Nyaribari Pigeon pea –PGL 3 Lablab - HL/SGL 2 Chick pea- SGL 2 Field pea 3 Lentils 2 Lupins 2 Grass pea 2 Climbing beans 2

Constraints Suna West Inputs and services-seeds- knowledge-water/markets- labour-land Suna west experienced frequent/severe droughts . Total crop failure can occur for three consecutive cropping seasons Labour poses a great challenge given the large land holdings

Pairwise ranking-Suna west Men: income- erosion control/fuel - Soil fertility/ food- feed Women: soil fertility- feed/erosion control -income/fuel- Food

General: Food- income- soil fertility- feed- erosion control- fuel Men: food- income- feed- Soil fertility- erosion control- fuel Women: Food- income/soil fertility- erosion control- feed/fuel High resource: Food- soil fertility- feed/income- erosion control- fuel Medium: food- feed/income- erosion control/soil fertility- fuel Low: Food- income- soil fertility- feed- fuel- erosion control

Options for Suna West Pigeon pea PGL 1 Lupins SGL 1 Field pea SGL 1 Climbing beans PGL 1

Rongo constraints Inputs and services- seeds- Knowledge- Labour- Markets-Water-Land

General: Food- soil fertility- income- feed- erosion control- fuel Men: Similar to general scenario Women: Food- soil fertility- income/feed- erosion control- fuel High resource: Similar to men Medium: food- feed/soil fertility- income- erosion control- fuel Low class farmers not present

Pairwise ranking- Rongo Men: food- feed/income- erosion control/Soil fertility Women: erosion control/soil fertility- feed- income/ Food No rank for fuel at all.

Legume options Pigeon pea Lupins Field pea Leucaena leucocephala

Concerns on the tool What happens when there is a tie in score during pairwise ranking? Is there clear difference between pairwise ranking and scores from participatory matrix scoring? Does the difference in resource endowment categories affect results? Interpretation of results from legume attibutes and scores section not clear. Could we assume that when benefits override constraints then option is worthy? (+ve, -ve balances) The tool require longer time Participants tend to influence one another's opinion during discussion Annex 6 requires rather longer time that cannot be possible during FGDs

Challenges encountered Poor/low participation Limited time Report coming soon

THANK YOU.