Legume CHOICE: a simple tool for prioritizing legume

interventions

Alan DuncanLegume 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

Land 1

Labour 0

Capital 1

Inputs and services 2Knowledge and services 4

Water 2

Markets 4

Land

Labour

Capital

Inputs and servicesKnowledge and services

Water

Markets

0

2

4

Score (0-4) - 4= key constraint, 0= no con-

straint

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 rankingFarmer name Gender Typology Food Feed Soil

Fertility Income Erosion control Fuel

Isaac Male High resource 3 3 4 10 0 0Tadesse Male Medium Resource 5 5 2 4 2 2

Ingrid Female Low Resource 10 0 0 10 0 0Irene Female High resource 2 2 3 6 3 1

                                                   

00.5

11.5

2Food

Feed

SoilFertility

Income

Erosioncontrol

Fuel

Demand for legume functions

00.5

11.5

2Food

Feed

SoilFertilit

y

Income

Erosion

control

Fuel

Priorities for functions based on gender

MaleFemale

0

1

2

3Food

Feed

Soil Fertility

Income

Erosioncontrol

Fuel

Demand for functions -Resource Endowment

High resourceMedium ResourceLow Resource

Pairwise ranking

Pair

Problem considered

more important

food vs. feed foodfood vs. soil fertility soil fertilityfood vs. income  food vs. erosion control  food vs. fuel  feed vs. soil fertility  feed vs. income feedfeed vs. erosion control  feed vs. fuel  soil fertility vs. income  soil fertility vs. erosion control  soil fertility vs. fuel feedincome vs. erosion control  income vs. fuel  erosion control vs. fuel  

0

0.5

1

1.5

2food

feed

soilfertility

income

erosioncontrol

fuel

Demand for legume functions from pairwise ranking

Legume Option Attributes

Legume name Type Food Feed

Income

Erosion

control Fuel

Soil fertilit

y

Common bean Grain legume seasonal 4 1 4 1 1 1

Groundnuts Grain legume seasonal 3 2 4 2 1 3

Soybean Grain legume seasonal 3 2 4 2 1 2

Pigeon pea Grain legume perennial 4 2 3 3 2 3

Mucuna Herbaceous legume seasonal 0 1 0 3 0 4

Lablab cv xx Herbaceous legume seasonal 4 4 3 2 1 3

DesmodiumHerbaceous legume perennial 0 4 2 3 0 3

Calliandra Tree legume coppicing 0 4 2 4 3 3

Sesbania Tree legume non-coppicing 0 4 2 4 3 3

Legume “Functional Fit”

Food Feed Income Erosion controlFuel Soil fertilityCommon bean Grain legume seasonal 5 1 2 2 0 0Groundnuts Grain legume seasonal 4 1 2 4 0 1Soybean Grain legume seasonal 4 1 2 4 0 0Pigeon pea Grain legume perennial 5 1 2 6 1 1Mucuna Herbaceous legume seasonal 0 1 0 6 0 1Lablab cv xx Herbaceous legume seasonal 5 3 2 4 0 1Desmodium Herbaceous legume perennial0 3 1 6 0 1Calliandra Tree legume coppicing 0 3 1 8 1 1Sesbania Tree legume non-coppicing 0 3 1 8 1 1

Context scores 1.25 0.625 0.5625 1.875 0.3125 0.1875

Constraint attributes 

Legume intervention scores (0-4), 4 high requirements

Legume name Type Land

Labour

Capital

Inputs and services

Knowledge and skills Water

Markets

Common bean Grain legume seasonal 2 3 1 2 3 2 3

Groundnuts Grain legume seasonal 4 4 1 3 3 2 4

Soybean Grain legume seasonal 3 3 1 3 3 2 4

Pigeon pea Grain legume perennial 1 2 1 1 2 1 2

MucunaHerbaceous legume seasonal 3 2 1 2 2 1 1

Lablab cv xxHerbaceous legume seasonal 2 3 1 2 2 2 2

DesmodiumHerbaceous legume perennial 3 1 1 1 2 2 2

Calliandra Tree legume coppicing 1 1 1 1 2 2 2

SesbaniaTree legume non-coppicing 1 2 1 2 2 2 2

“Constraint fit”Land Labour Capital Inputs and servicesKnowledge and skillsWater Markets

Common beanGrain legume seasonal2 0 1 4 12 4 0GroundnutsGrain legume seasonal4 0 1 6 12 4 0Soybean Grain legume seasonal3 0 1 6 12 4 0Pigeon peaGrain legume perennial1 0 1 2 8 2 0Mucuna Herbaceous legume seasonal3 0 1 4 8 2 0Lablab cv xxHerbaceous legume seasonal2 0 1 4 8 4 0DesmodiumHerbaceous legume perennial3 0 1 2 8 4 0Calliandra Tree legume coppicing1 0 1 2 8 4 0Sesbania Tree legume non-coppicing1 0 1 4 8 4 0

Constraint scores 1 0 1 2 4 2 4

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