Legume CHOICE: a simple tool for prioritizing legume interventions Alan Duncan Legume CHOICE Co-ordination Meeting, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Feb 2-4, 2015

Why do we need a Legume CHOICE tool?  Conventional approaches to legume R4D focus focus on: –Promotion –Technology transfer –Science driven  Do conventional approaches meet the needs of beneficiaries? –Food, feed, NRM? –Dealing with farmer constraints

Progress so far…  Initial ideas for tool presented in Kisii in May 2014  Crude scoring scheme exercise incorporated into FGD in each country  Built upon this preliminary work at Expert Meeting in Jan 2015 in Nairobi

Farmer-centred diagnosis Community needs assessment Qualitative assessment of farming context Quantitative assessment of constraints Quantitative assessment of needs for functions Intervention strategy Legume option attributes Logical flow of Legume CHOICE tool components

Farmer-Centred Diagnosis  Qualitative assessment of farming system  The objective of the focus group discussion is to get the consensus opinion of the participants on the following topics: –General Farming System Description: farm/household sizes, rainfall patterns, cropping seasons and types of legume crops grown, types of livestock, land availability, labour availability, water and irrigation, credit, inputs soil fertility, insects, pest and diseases. –Management Practices of all Legume types: Identify the common practices used in legume production and utilization, commonly used niches, labour and knowledge demands in legume production. –Markets for Legume Grains and Residues: Quantify legume production as a proportion of overall production e.g. proportion of marketable overall grain production that is legume based and proportion of overall feed supply that is legume based and to explore market accessibility. –Main Challenges limiting Legume Growing, Management and Productivity: Identify and rank constraints for legume intensification, i.e. increase productivity and area of existing legume species.

Farmer-Centred Diagnosis  Quantitative assessment of constraints  FGD guide also helps facilitator score a series of possible constraints Score (0-4) - 4= key constraint, 0= no constraint Land1 Labour0 Capital1 Inputs and services2 Knowledge and services4 Water2 Markets4

Community needs assessment  Steps –Select farmers Representation by typology and gender –Vision mapping Where are you at the moment in terms of livelihood strategies and how do you want that to be in the future? Commercialization, off-farm, diversification, expansion? –Discussion on “what is a legume?” –Discussion: “what benefits do legumes bring?” Unique benefits – food, fodder, soil fertility Other benefits – income, erosion control, fuel –Exercises to produce “legume function needs” scores Participatory matrix scoring Pairwise ranking

Participatory matrix ranking Farmer name GenderTypologyFoodFeed Soil Fertility Income Erosion control Fuel IsaacMaleHigh resource TadesseMaleMedium Resource IngridFemaleLow Resource IreneFemaleHigh resource223631

Pairwise ranking Pair Problem considered more important food vs. feedfood food vs. soil fertilitysoil fertility food vs. income food vs. erosion control food vs. fuel feed vs. soil fertility feed vs. incomefeed feed vs. erosion control feed vs. fuel soil fertility vs. income soil fertility vs. erosion control soil fertility vs. fuelfeed income vs. erosion control income vs. fuel erosion control vs. fuel

Legume Option Attributes Legume nameType Food Feed Income Erosion control Fuel Soil fertility Common beanGrain legume seasonal GroundnutsGrain legume seasonal SoybeanGrain legume seasonal Pigeon peaGrain legume perennial MucunaHerbaceous legume seasonal Lablab cv xxHerbaceous legume seasonal DesmodiumHerbaceous legume perennial CalliandraTree legume coppicing SesbaniaTree legume non-coppicing042433

Legume “Functional Fit”

Constraint attributes Legume intervention scores (0-4), 4 high requirements Legume nameType LandLabour Capital Inputs and services Knowledg e and skills Water Markets Common beanGrain legume seasonal GroundnutsGrain legume seasonal SoybeanGrain legume seasonal Pigeon peaGrain legume perennial Mucuna Herbaceous legume seasonal Lablab cv xx Herbaceous legume seasonal Desmodium Herbaceous legume perennial CalliandraTree legume coppicing Sesbania Tree legume non- coppicing

“Constraint fit”

Putting it all together  Farmer centred diagnosis  understanding of qualitative and quantitative constraints  Community needs assessment  understanding of what farmers want out of legumes  Legume attribute sheet  expert knowledge on what different legume types deliver and what their requirements are for context attributes (land, labour, knowledge etc)  Overall: ideas for which legumes might fit and what might constrain their adoption