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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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.

6. 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

7. 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

8. Participatory matrix ranking Farmer name GenderTypologyFoodFeed Soil Fertility Income Erosion control Fuel IsaacMaleHigh resource3341000 TadesseMaleMedium Resource552422 IngridFemaleLow Resource1000 00 IreneFemaleHigh resource223631

9. 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

10. Legume Option Attributes Legume nameType Food Feed Income Erosion control Fuel Soil fertility Common beanGrain legume seasonal414111 GroundnutsGrain legume seasonal324213 SoybeanGrain legume seasonal324212 Pigeon peaGrain legume perennial423323 MucunaHerbaceous legume seasonal010304 Lablab cv xxHerbaceous legume seasonal443213 DesmodiumHerbaceous legume perennial042303 CalliandraTree legume coppicing042433 SesbaniaTree legume non-coppicing042433

11. Legume “Functional Fit”

12. 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 seasonal2312323 GroundnutsGrain legume seasonal4413324 SoybeanGrain legume seasonal3313324 Pigeon peaGrain legume perennial1211212 Mucuna Herbaceous legume seasonal3212211 Lablab cv xx Herbaceous legume seasonal2312222 Desmodium Herbaceous legume perennial3111222 CalliandraTree legume coppicing1111222 Sesbania Tree legume non- coppicing1212222

13. “Constraint fit”

14. 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