1. DRC Team

2. Participatory matrix scoring

3. Pairwise ranking

4. Context scores

5. Legume option attributes_Function Legume nameFoodFeedIncome Erosion controlFuel Soil fertility Total score Common bean91200113 Groundnuts71210415 Soybean71210313 Pigeon pea91210417 Mucuna0101056 Lablab cv xx93210418 Desmodium0311048 Calliandra0311049 Sesbania0311049 2.250.68750.56250.2501.25  Lablab,  Pigeon pea,  Groundnut,  Soybean and  Common bean are promising legumes

6. Legume option attributes_Constraints Legume nameLandLabourCapital Inputs and services Knowle dge and skillsWater Market sTotal Common bean4028901235 Groundnuts80212901647 Soybean60212901645 Pigeon pea202460822 Mucuna602860426 Lablab cv xx402860828 Desmodium602460826 Calliandra202460822 Sesbania202860826 2024304  Groundnuts, soybean and common bean have high level of constraint  Pigeon pea lowest level of constraint followed by Lablab

7. Propositions for improvement of the FCD page 8: need to be open, no species added. But it is not clear its usefulness. Page 9 (table): List of constraints should not be open but match the constraints in the context scoring Need to add boxes for recording the scoring: pages 2, 3, The secondary functions are not included page 10: the pairwise of constraints does not come into the spreadsheet. Instead there is pairwise of functions.

8. Area of Intervention