Basket of options: Unpacking the concept.

How to stimulate technological change to enhance agricultural productivity and reduce poverty remains an area of vigorous debate. In the face of heterogeneity among farm households and rural areas, one proposition is to offer potential users a 'basket of options' - a range of agricultural technologies from which potential users may select the ones that are best suited to their specific circumstances. While the idea of a basket of options is now generally accepted, it has attracted little critical attention. In this paper, we reflect on outstanding questions: the appropriate dimensions of a basket, its contents and how they are identified, and how a basket might be presented. We conceive a basket of options in terms of its depth (number of options related to a problem or opportunity) and breadth (the number of different problems or opportunities addressed). The dimensions of a basket should reflect the framing of the problem or opportunity at hand and the objective in offering the basket. We recognise that increasing the number of options leads to a trade-off by decreasing the fraction of those options that are relevant to an individual user. Farmers might try out, adapt or use one or more of the options in a basket, possibly leading to a process of technological change. We emphasise that the selection (or not) of specific options from the basket, and potential adaptation of the options, provide important opportunities for learning. Baskets of options can therefore be understood as important boundary concepts that invite critical engagement, comparison and discussion. Significant knowledge gaps remain, however, about the best ways to present the basket and to guide potential users to select the options that are most relevant to them.

Co-design of improved climbing bean production practices for smallholder farmers in the highlands of Uganda.

We evaluated the usefulness of a co-design process to generate a relevant basket of options for climbing bean cultivation in the context of a large-scale project. The aim was to identify a range of options sufficiently diverse to be of interest for farmers of widely-different resource endowment. The co-design process consisted of three cycles of demonstration, evaluation and re-design in the eastern and southwestern highlands of Uganda in 2014-2015. Evaluations aimed to distinguish preferences of farmers between the two areas, and among farmers of different gender and socio-economic backgrounds. Farmers, researchers, extension officers and NGO staff re-designed treatments for demonstrations in the next season. Climbing bean yields and evaluation scores varied between seasons and sites. Evaluation scores were not always in line with yields, revealing that farmers used multiple evaluation criteria next to yield, such as marketability of varieties, availability of inputs and ease of staking methods. The co-design process enriched the basket of options, improved the relevance of options demonstrated and enhanced the understanding of preferences of a diversity of users. Developing options for resource-poor farmers was difficult, however, because they face multiple constraints. The basket of options developed in this study can be applied across the East-African highlands, with an 'option-by-context' matrix as a starting point for out-scaling. The study also showed, however, that consistent recommendations about the suitability of technologies for different types of farmers were hard to identify. This highlights the importance of a basket of options with flexible combinations of practices rather than developing narrowly specified technology packages for static farm types.

Farmers' use and adaptation of improved climbing bean production practices in the highlands of Uganda.

Climbing beans offer potential for sustainable intensification of agriculture, but their cultivation constitutes a relatively complex technology consisting of multiple components or practices. We studied uptake of improved climbing bean production practices (improved variety, input use and management practices) through co-designed demonstrations and farmer-managed adaptation trials with 374 smallholder farmers in eastern and southwestern Uganda. A sub-set of these farmers was monitored one to three seasons after introduction. About 70% of the farmers re-planted climbing beans one season after the adaptation trial, with significant differences between eastern (50%) and southwestern Uganda (80-90%). Only 1% of the farmers used all of the improved practices and 99% adapted the technology. On average, farmers used half of the practices in different combinations, and all farmers used at least one of the practices. Yield variability of the trials was large and on average, trial plots did not yield more than farmers' own climbing bean plots. Yet, achieved yields did not influence whether farmers continued to cultivate climbing bean in the subsequent season. Uptake of climbing beans varied with household characteristics: poorer farmers cultivated climbing beans more often but used fewer of the best-bet practices; male farmers generally used more practices than female farmers. Planting by poorer farmers resulted in adaptations such as growing climbing beans without fertilizer and with fewer and shorter stakes. Other relationships were often inconsistent and farmers changed practices from season to season. The diversity of farmer responses complicates the development of recommendation domains and warrants the development of a basket of options from which farmers can choose. Our study shows how adoption of technologies consisting of multiple components is a complicated process that is hard to capture through the measurement of an adoption rate at a single point in time.

Looking back and moving forward: 50 years of soil and soil fertility management research in sub-Saharan Africa.

Low and declining soil fertility has been recognized for a long time as a major impediment to intensifying agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Consequently, from the inception of international agricultural research, centres operating in SSA have had a research programme focusing on soil and soil fertility management, including the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA). The scope, content, and approaches of soil and soil fertility management research have changed over the past decades in response to lessons learnt and internal and external drivers and this paper uses IITA as a case study to document and analyse the consequences of strategic decisions taken on technology development, validation, and ultimately uptake by smallholder farmers in SSA. After an initial section describing the external environment within which soil and soil fertility management research is operating, various dimensions of this research area are covered: (i) 'strategic research', 'Research for Development', partnerships, and balancing acts, (ii) changing role of characterization due to the expansion in geographical scope and shift from soils to farms and livelihoods, (iii) technology development: changes in vision, content, and scale of intervention, (iv) technology validation and delivery to farming communities, and (v) impact and feedback to the technology development and validation process. Each of the above sections follows a chronological approach, covering the last five decades (from the late 1960s till today). The paper ends with a number of lessons learnt which could be considered for future initiatives aiming at developing and delivering improved soil and soil fertility management practices to smallholder farming communities in SSA.