A Comprehensive Study on Agricultural Extension Reforms and Its Impact

This report provides a comprehensive overview of agricultural extension reforms and their impact on farmers globally. It begins with an introduction to current agricultural monitoring practices and the role of extension reforms in improving agricultural practices and farmer development. The report then traces the evolution of agricultural extension, from the initial top-down models to farming systems research and participatory approaches. It critically examines the issues associated with each model, including the limitations of the top-down approach, the challenges faced by farming systems research, and the critiques of the Training and Visit model. The analysis covers a global perspective, highlighting the importance of agricultural extension for agricultural development and addressing the challenges faced by farmers in developing countries. The report emphasizes the need for constant research and the adoption of innovations to improve agricultural practices and the quality of life for rural people.

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
Farmers at present uses different agricultural monitoring practices that are being suggested by
the government and making available to them with the help of extension reforms more than a
decade. These reformed are being performed by government of India by launching several Agri-
clinics and Agri-business center schemes. This is so because their dependence on agriculture is
not only for food but also to make a livelihood, in order to meet diversified growing needs born
out of modernization (Shekara, 2001). The main aim of performing this research is to determine
the effect that extension reform brought to the farmers and manner in which it is working toward
improving the agricultural practices performed by the farmers. In addition to this it also support
in determining the main factors that work toward development of farmers. These developments
demand new and diverse learning needs from the farming community (Kapoor, 2010). In
response to the changing needs, agricultural extension reforms were introduced across the globe,
particularly in developing countries, with a new scope of seeking to alleviate poverty through
extension, by providing the marginal and poor farmers in particular with appropriate knowledge,
information, technologies and management practices through a market oriented concept.
The way in which agricultural extension has been organized and provided to meet these challenges has
changed over time, with remarkably similar trends across the globe. These changes have been linked to
general trends in development thinking and practice. A strong belief in the role of the state—as the major
actor of development—characterized the economic policies of many developing nations after they
reached their independence. The establishment of public sector extension services fitted well into this
paradigm. The Training and Visit (T&V) system, promoted by the World Bank in more than 50 countries,
became a major model for providing and managing extension (Purcell and Anderson, 1997; Anderson,
Feder, and Ganguly 2006). The disenchantment with the role of the state in development— reflected in
the structural adjustment programs of the 1980s and 1990s—led to a downsizing of agricultural extension
in many countries. The T&V system was finally abandoned in the late 1990s. The question remains
whether the major reason was the lack of fiscal sustainability, the inadequacy of the model for many
situations in which it was promoted, or its inconsistency with the growing emphasis on the role of the
state as a facilitator rather than a provider of public services
The meaning of extension has been evolved as the “process of disseminating, need-based and
demand-based knowledge and skills to rural people in a non-formal, participatory manner, with the
objective of improving their quality of life” (Qamar, 2005). Extension services can be in any field;
when the extension services are implemented in the field of agriculture, it is called agricultural
extension. On the other side, extension is basically refers to the implementation of scientific
research as well as knowledge over the agricultural practices by educating farmers. This field of
extension has now become more improved within India as now government has integrated several
new sort of communication as well as learning activities for educating the rural people regarding
1

agricultural practices through several professionals that belongs to different discipline such as
agricultural marketing, health or business studied that get specialized in the field of agriculture.
The success of the extension services lies in two critical factors: one is constant research, and the
other is to encourage the farmers in adopting the innovations of the research into practice. These
extension practices later were operated with broader objectives such as generating rural
employment, poverty alleviation, etc. However, extension services are perceived in a negative
way in many of the developing countries due to various reasons such as weak extension lobby,
lack of confidence in the research, and inadequate parameters to measure the service of the
professionals. Developed nations like the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, Denmark have advanced
practices of agriculture due to extension services which are facilitated by both public and private
agencies which were initially controlled by public agencies (Qamar,2005).
1.3 Agricultural extension– a global perspective
Agricultural extension is important for agricultural development. Its work has a “venerable, albeit,
largely unrecorded history” (Jones and Garforth, 1997), and its origin can be traced in “man's
quest for improving agriculture” (Sulaiman, 2003:1). The modern form of Agriculture had its
origin in the 19th century.
In many of the less industrialized countries, agriculture development remains the main concern,
especially the increase of population is aggravating, the problem of food insecurity and
intensifying the rural poverty (Rivera, Qamar, 2003a, Rivera, Qamar, 2003b, Ponniah et al., 2008).
Due to the non-availability of technology, farmers in the underdeveloped and developing
countries have to face various problems due to improper integration or adoption of technology.
For instant, India is a developing country and agriculture is consider as a center piece of economy
of India while remaining a main source of livelihood for majority of people but still this sector
stands at technologically backward. This includes inadequate farm equipment, distribution
challenges due to intermediaries among the farm to fork, inadequate transportation are some of
the common issues that are involve in Indian agricultural sector due to lack of technical
development.
The scope of the extension services not only ‘expanded’ after the 1950s (Anholt, 1994), but also
received financial support and aid from the donor agencies by acknowledging its crucial role in
the agriculture development (Purcell and Anderson, 1997, Anderson, 2008).
This chapter involves a discussion regarding the practices related with the agricultural extension
and development that become possible from such practices. This discussion will be mentioned in
literature review section as well as data analysis section where information will examined in the
context of an emerging development paradigm. A brief view of the extension development for
the past sixty years until the most recent reform have been categorized by different authors in
2

different ways. Farrington (2002) and Ponniah (2008), in their reviews, classified it according to
different periods of evolution. Haug in his review (1999: 264, 265) drawn from the work of Pretty
and Chambers (1993), categorized extension theory into four stages, on the basis of its approach
and the major disciplinary influence. Similarly, King, (2000) in Bukenya (2010: 6), identified
extension world views, for the past years linking each world view to the corresponding impetus,
agenda, and focus (Table 1.1).
Traditionally technology transfer through extension was made in a linear, top-down manner
(Sulaiman and Hall, 2002a, 2002b, Ponniah et al., 2008) by diffusion of innovations from research
to the farmers (Roling, 1988, Farrington, 2002). The research focused on ‘technology generation’,
whereas extension focused on ‘adoption of the technologies’ by the farmers (Qamar, 2005: vii).
The objectives of extension were usually framed as a 'predetermined' (Bukenya, 2010)
'interveners' (Roling, 1988: 39) targets, basically with the ‘production’ goals (Garforth and
Lawrence, 1997, Farrington, 2002), and so success was measured in terms of ‘increased
production’ and the ‘rate of adoption’ (Christoplos, 1996: 3) by the farmers. The primary
objective of the extension was to attain food security (Haug, 1999, Farrington, 2002: 6), by
transferring uniform package of services to all the farmers irrespective of their landholding and
socioeconomic condition due to 'political determination' (Roling, Jong, 1998: 146).
1.3.1 The issues in the Top-Down Model
The top-down model was in the practice which grossly ignored the needs of the farmers,
therefore it was viewed that this model was dominated by the ‘researchers’ perceptions’
(Farrington, 2002: 6), as agricultural research was “seen as the fountain head of technological
innovations” (Röling, 1996 in Bukenya, 2010), and innovations of the farmers were not
considered by treating them the passive and mere receivers of the technology (Davis. 2010). Pro-
innovation approach, which was dominated by the bureaucratic structure, could not bring the
women, rain fed, and risk-prone farmers into the ambit of extension services. Even the
knowledge dissemination to the farmers was hampered to a greater extent.
However, farmers are the significant entity in agriculture extension services system, and their
needs have to be paid utmost attention by the extension managers. In this regard, the personnel
of the extension services needs strong collective, social, and innovative skills to reach the farmers
and understand their concerns (Roling, 1988, Ban, 1997: 1639, Davis, 2010) since the aim of the
extension services are not to change the individual behaviour but to bring a qualitative change in
the society (Christoplos, 1996).
1.3.2 Farming Systems Research and Extension
The information and knowledge impasse, created by the diffusion of innovation research,
towards the risk-prone farmers has led to the evolution of ‘systems approach’, in order to reach
more number of farmers (Ponniah, 2008: 34, Farrington, 2002: 6). The linear model of the
extension was replaced by the two-way communication model (Haug, 1999, Ponniah, 2008).
3

Technologies were designed through an ‘inter-disciplinary perspective’ (Friis-Hansen, 1994: 23),
by involving the agronomists and economists (Haug, 1999). Farmers’ perceptions and
understandings were given due recognition (Farrington, 2002; Haug, 1999; Jones and Garforth,
1997) by taking into consideration different agro ecological and socioeconomic conditions of the
farmers (Farrington, 2002), so that the newly designed technology could meet the farmers’
requirements in a holistic way (King, 2000 in Bukenya, 2010). This approach served as a guide for
the holistic and systems thinking concept as seen in Table 1.1 (King, 2000 in Bukenya, 2010), and
it was named as Farming Systems Research (FSR) (Haug, 1997, Farrington, 2002). In recognition of
the key role played by extension in feeding information into the research system, it was named as
Farming Systems Research and Extension (FSR&E) (Ponniah, 2008, King, 2000 in Bukenya, 2010).
1.3.3 Issues in Farming Systems Research and Extension(FSR&E)
The farming systems concept showed its relevance in practice, with its holistic thinking and a
multidisciplinary approach in dealing with farmers’ concerns. However, it suffered from ‘inability
to shift domain’ (Farrington, 2002: 6) by the researchers to leave their conventional mode of
operation (Farrington, 2002) and maintaining control over the ‘research agenda’ (King, 2000 in
Bukenya, 2010). The approach remained mostly extractive rather than participatory as farming
was looked upon merely in the economic context by tailoring the design of farming conditions
and showing more impact on the farm income rather than on production technologies (Friss-
Hansen and Kisauzi, 2004). The systems approach still remained distant from the involvement of
the people, in setting the research and extension agenda (Farrington, 2002: 8), and was generally
weak at recognizing and mitigating situations of conflict (Friis-Hansen, 2004). There was a
growing recognition that ‘technological changes’ can be attained through the social participation
of the people, as it can bring about social movement, and always has a ‘social impact’ (Roling,
1988, Ban, 1997, Christoplos, 1996: 7) on the people.
1.3.4 Training and Visit model and critique
The farming systems concept has reflected in Training and Visit model (T&V) which was initiated
in the 1970s, with the funding support of World Bank (Purcell and Anderson, 1997, Farrington,
2002; Anderson and Feder, 2003: 17). This model was adopted in more than fifty countries across
the world and was regarded for its contribution of specific packages to wider geographical areas.
Nevertheless, since it was succeeded in promoting the application of uniform technology, it was
criticized on the grounds of “irrelevant, inefficient, ineffective technologies irrespective of its
suitability” (Davis, 2009: 48 in Davis, 2008), especially with respect to resource-poor
environments (Rivera and Sulaiman, 2009).
1.3.5 Participatory approaches
From the 1980s, participatory approaches were prioritised as seen in Table 1:1, by highlighting
the participation of the farmer in the research process along with the scientists and extension
staff as participation with the researchers and extensionist as “social actors in the social practice
4

of agriculture production” (Haug, 1999: 265). This period played a crucial role in fusing the gaps
between a small business which is seen as neoclassical thinking of farming, and multifunctional,
which is perceived as liberal socialist view of (Haug, 1999) performer of rural development.
Farmers were encouraged to share their knowldege by introducing the indigenous knowledge
they have so that by using this actions can be performed toward the technology development
(Haug, 1999: 265) depending on the farming system. A fusion of professionals like
anthropologists, agro-ecologists, and geologists marked this era with their novel contributions to
environmentally sustainable farming practices (Haug, 1999). A new environmentally sustainable
approach, Farmer field school was evolved under the leadership of these professionals (Roling
and Jong, 1998).
1.3.6 Women’s Participation
Farm activities in the rural areas were conducted by both the men and women, however, the
extension approaches available in the past were biased which included only men by ignoring the
women farmers by “default or by design”(Saito &Weiderman, 1990 in Haug, 1999: 268)
(MANAGE, 2007). The contribution of the women to agriculture sector started receiving the
acknowledgement in the early 1980s (Jafry & Sulaiman, 2012).
Since ages women had limited access or were devoid of various agricultural extension services,
like access to technological resources and various agricultural inputs, necessary equipment and
land. It was due to the constraints imposed by culture, customs, and traditions of the society,
and women failed to claim their stake. Above all, “nontangible assets, such as social capital,
human capital, rights, and decision making power, were more difficult for women to access”
(Meinzen-Dick et al., 2011).
Though rural women are usually engaged in multiple household activities to amplify various
livelihood strategies (FAO, 2011), however, these crucial contributions of women such as the
production of crops, livestock and harvesting cash crops (Manfre et al., 2013) are not considered
to be economically active employment (FAO, 2011). The past extension approaches during the
1950s and ‘60s, simply aimed at the dissemination of new agricultural knowledge to farmers. The
Training and Visit (T&V) extension system during the 1970s viewed women as beneficiaries in the
welfare schemes/sense, but not as actors in their own right in the agricultural production system
(World Bank, 2009). One of the key factors identified for the underperforming of agriculture, in
many developing countries, is the non-inclusion of women farmers and creating the resources
and opportunities for them (FAO, 2011).
1.4 Preparatory Period for Extension Reforms
5

With the changing economic scenario during the late 1990s, and in view of the ‘neoliberal
philosophies’ (Christoplos et al, 2001: 15), accelerated the ‘rolling back of the states’ from
(development), provision of agricultural extension services (Sulaiman and Holt, 2002: 1,
Christoplos et al, 2001: 15, Farrington, 1994). The structural adjustments have heavily impacted
on public extension, creating a “glum situation" (Haug, 1999: 266), due to reductions in public
spending (Farrington, 1994). These situations have contributed to the emergence of significant
innovative approaches across the globe, which include focusing on the empowerment of the
people through participation, pluralistic mode of operation (by involving wider players), cost
recovery for some of the inputs supplied, decentralization, improving the extension
management, privatizing some of the service aspects, fee for services provision to suitable
clients, improving the information and communication technologies (ICT) to inter connect rural
people, focus on specific commodities, involving NGO’s and farmer’s organisations, capacity
training of farmers and extension providers (Swanson, 2008, Anderson, 2007, Birner & Anderson,
2007, Rivera and Alex 2005, Rivera, et al, 2001, Feder et al, 1999).
The mid-1990s is categorized as an institutional stage (Haug, 1999), and also viewed as a period
of ‘uncertainty’, created by ‘human activity’ with the changing ‘economy’ on the globe (Roling
and Jong, 1998: 147). The term ‘uncertainty’ (Roling and Jong, 1998: 147) in contemporary
extension, ‘conjures up various approaches from the past and juxtaposes into an amorphous
umbrella’ (Christoplos, 2010: 2), of different actors and activities, which provide information and
advice to both men and women farmers, as per their demands and requirements in agricultural
and rural development. Therefore, they are termed as agricultural advisory services. This period
paved the way for addressing various social and economic developments of the rural areas
through extension (Garforth and Harford, 1997; Bukenya, 2010).
1.4.1 Wider role for extension
In view of the wider role for the extension, Swanson (2008) and Swanson &Rajalahti (2010),
identified four major objectives, which include:
1) Technology transfer for the staple food crops production
2) Human capital development for improving farm income, by providing farmers with
knowledge, technical and management skills
3) Building social capital for carrying out specific activities
4) Educating farmers for the sustainable management of natural resources.
On similar lines, Christoplos (1996) identified three objectives for attaining social change, which
includes:
1. Environmental sustainability
2. Poverty alleviation
6

3. Empowerment.
From the information presented by Christoplos, it can be observed that the objectives of
extension have moved towards the broader perspective of attaining sustainability of agriculture
by improving rural livelihoods through empowerment.
According to Roling, 1996, when the practice of extension becomes very diverse and is meant to
serve different purposes, then it becomes essential for the extension to be served in different
ways.
In relation to this aspect, Swanson and Rajalahti (2010: 2) identified four major paradigms for
organizing the extension, 1) Technology transfer 2) Advisory services 3) Non-formal education
and 4) Facilitation. These four paradigms show the integral relationship between the theory and
practice of agricultural advisory services.
1) Extension as Technology transfer approach: was practiced to reduce food cost (Swanson and
Rajalahti, 2010), by increasing the food production, through persuasive methods of teaching. This
was a key function which was continued for attaining national food security (Swanson, 2010).
a) Impact of Extension Services on National Food Security
Self-sufficiency in terms of food is an inevitable objective of every country. In the second phase of
20th-century efforts were made to achieve food security to meet the food needs of a growing
population in both urban and rural areas. Adequate attention was paid on the primary crops by
providing the extension services in increasing the yield of these primary crops based geographical
regions of various countries like rice, wheat, tubers, oil seeds, pulses and maize were given due
importance. With the availability of green revolution technologies many countries showed
positive impact in well endowed areas increasing the productivity of the primary crops through
transfer of technology approach. However, this approach left agricultural research and extension
from government support because of the long term concentration on agricultural productivity,
besides leaving nearly millions of people undernourished affecting the household food security
and the rural livelihoods.
At the same time changes in the food pattern in transforming economies like China and India
demanded a variety of crops like fruits, livestock, and fisheries. And appropriate technology and
management methods have to be incorporated to meet the growing food needs since there is
pressure on the land and water resources. Countries which could not compete in tapping the land
and water resources were prone to large scale food security problems, especially at the
household level.
b) Improving Rural Livelihoods and Achieving Household Food Security
7

Rural livelihood through improving the households, especially the marginal farm families, has
been the recent extension objectives in many nations, especially, in Sub-Saharan Africa and South
Asian Regions.
After examining the rural livelihood in Asian Countries, it was perceived that marginal farmers
can be benefitted with farm income. Therefore for increasing the farm income, more emphases
toward diversification of high value crops, fisheries and livestock must be put which not only
support in improving the farmers' income but also support in fulfilling the need of people lives in
urban areas. This is so because it is a labor intensive farm activity which mainly addresses the
problems related with unemployment in rural areas. This in turn also support in reducing the
migration of people to the developed area for sake of employment and livelihood. Farmer
producer groups as farmers and farm women as the members are necessary to fulfill the
objectives mentioned above since it enables them to avail the best of technology, management
methods, and market access. Hence, by organizing farm women into Self Help Groups it become
easier to improve the quality of lives in rural areas with better education, health, and nutrition.
2) Extension as Advisory services: shows its justification in contemporary form by moving beyond
its traditional role of mere training and communicating messages, to assume a much broader role
of improving farm business as an enterprise (Bukenya, 2010). The main strategy of this paradigm
is to increase farm income (Swanson, 2010), by improving livelihood options. Farmers are advised
to solve the identified constraint or problem by seeking advice from various service providers to
solve their problems.
3) Non-Formal Education (NFE): traditionally served as one of the means of training for the farmers
who do not have formal education facilities. Nevertheless, the focus of contemporary extension
has shifted towards training the farmers on specific management or technical skills which
improve the production as seen in integrated pest management (IPM), and Farmer's field schools
(FFS).
4) Facilitation of extension: Changing the role of the extension worker from advisor/teacher to facilitator.
Extension agencies are no longer only providers of technologies and advice but create conditions for a
broader flow of information and knowledge. ‘Extension workers’ are being transformed into ‘farm
advisors’ who engage their client farmers in critical thinking about their agricultural endeavours and about
the management of their farming enterprises. It focuses on the common interest of the farmers by
organizing and work more closely together through participatory approaches to achieve both
individual and common objectives. It engages farmers through an active learning process through
experimentation to improve their problem-solving skills, which is in line with the “human
resource development view of extension” (Swanson, 2008: 26). This approach helps the farmers
to intensify and diversify their farming systems according to the market demands and helps them
in driving towards the economic opportunities to improve their farm household income. More
8

significantly, women farmers are also identified to participate in the facilitation process and work
in groups to attain specific purposes.
Swanson and Rajalahti (2010) opined that however to both increase farm
income and improve rural livelihoods among the rural poor, it will be
necessary for most public extension organizations to transition toward greater
use of facilitation and Non Formal Extension (NFE) extension methods. In
particular, small-scale men and women farmers, including the landless, can
begin organizing into community or farmer groups and then learn the
necessary technical, management, and marketing skills that will be necessary
to help them progressively diversify into higher-value crop, livestock, or other
enterprises that will increase their farm household income. At the same time,
as the agricultural sector in countries develop (i.e., becomes increasingly
commercialized), technology transfer and advisory services tend to be
increasingly privatized. Therefore, in the process, it is important to build
strong public–private partnerships that will further enhance agricultural
productivity growth, as well as to increase the incomes and improve the
livelihoods of small-scale and landless farm households. Another important
change is the shift from a more linear technology transfer model toward a
more holistic approach in understanding how and where farmers get their
information and technologies. For example, the current move toward an
agricultural innovations systems approach arises through an interactive,
inclusive process relying on multiple sources and actors (World Bank 2006b).
Especially when the goal is to intensify and diversify farming systems, both
innovative farmers and extension can play a significant, joint role in working
together to introduce new market-driven crop and/or livestock systems to
small-scale men and women farmers. Therefore, extension, in effect, serves as
a facilitator or knowledge broker; this transition has implications for the
technical, professional, and entrepreneurial skills that extension agents will
need to be effective in this new role (Rajalahti, Janssen, and Pehu 2008).
The institutional period marked the beginning of paying increased attention to women
empowerment (MANAGE, 2007). Many of the developing countries, under the revitalized
extension system, aimed at a much broader objective of improving rural livelihoods, beyond
mere agricultural productivity (Swanson &Rajalahti, 2010). This shift to “livelihoods oriented
approach” has opened up wide opportunities to women, by “strengthening women’s leadership
skills” to participate and articulate their extension needs (Gallina, 2010), by social capital
formation. Besides that, the rise in ‘Female empowerment’ laws had provisions of increased
opportunities for women in accessing and acquiring ownership of various valuable assets. It also
enhanced ‘mobility and personal decision making’ of women (Meinzen-Dick et al., 2011), which
9

were lacking in the past system due to discriminatory social norms against women. Above all,
challenging gender inequality rather than complaining, increases efficiency and productivity in
the agricultural sector through extension, and thereby contributes towards growth and poverty
reduction (Christoplos, 2010; World Bank, 2009).
TABLE 1:1 Different extension world views during the 20th century
Haug (1999)
Ki
n
g
(
2
0
0
0
)
in
B
u
k
e
n
y
a
(
2
0
1
0
)
Extension
‘world view.’
Impetus Agenda Theoretical foci
Production stage1900-
1975, extension
approaches were top-
down, one-way transfer
of technology model,
farmers, were viewed as
recipients, and major
pioneering disciplines
Pre 1960’s
Transfer of
technology
Extending
research
findings
Production
(changing farms)
Message
transmission
1960’s The
diffusion of
innovations
era, transfer
Address poor
uptake of
technology
result of
Market-oriented
farm enterprise
(changing
farmers)
Adult learning
nature of
learning
adoption
10

were crop breeding and
animal breeding.
of
technology
differential
adoption rates
behaviour
Economic stage 1975-1985,
the farming systems
approach were pioneered
by economists and
agronomists, and farmers
were viewed as a major
source of information and
technology design,
1970’s Farming
systems
research
Heterogenous
environment
(both physical
and social)
Systems-
oriented
innovations
(changing
farming
systems)
Holistic thinking
Systems
thinking
Ecological stage 1985-1995,
pioneering disciplines
were Anthropology,
Agroecology and
Geography, farmers were
treated as both victims
and cause of
environmental
unsustainable
development.
1980’s
Participatory
technology
development
Inequity
Inappropriat
e
technologies
Social justice
(south)
Changing
indigenous
knowledge
(south and
north)
(changing
practice)
Power
community
development
gender(south)
Organizational
learning group
work team
building (north)
Institutional stage 1995
onwards, Psychologists,
organizational
sociologists, scientists and
training specialists and
educators pioneered the
system, and farmers were
viewed as collaborators of
research and extension.
Early 1990’ s
Facilitating
participatory
learning.
Extension’s
role and
practice
questioned
farmer
knowledge
Ecological
sustainability
(changing
institutions)
Communicative
rationality
Late 1990’s
Facilitating
social learning
Systems are
embedded in
other systems
Merging social
justice and
ecological
sustainability
(changing
relationships)
Systems
thinking,
cognitive
process,
constructivism
helped
practitioners
think critically
about
knowledge
Source –from Haug (1999) and King (2000) in Bukenya (2010)
1.4.2 Agricultural Innovation System
Furthermore, the thinking of the agricultural advisory services, focused on the inclusion of the
‘Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems (AKIS)’ and the ‘Agricultural Innovation Systems
(AIS)’, under one framework known as ‘Agricultural Innovation’ systems (Berdegue and Escober,
11

2002, Sulaiman and Hall, 2004, Leeuwis and Aarts, 2009). These systems supported in fulfilling
the diversified information and knowledge need of rural people by providing it through several
sources in a systematic manner which contribute toward developing the organization learning
and making them capable to adopt the changes effectively. This also supported in expanding the
horizons of understanding related with the agricultural extension which contrasting the
traditional approach used by farmers for performing agricultural practices without considering
several sources to gather information. It is recognized that rural population consists of a mixture
of people who not only depend on agriculture for their livelihood but also depend on other non-
agricultural activities, some as part-time agricultural laborers (Farrington et al; 2002, Rivera and
Alex, 2004, Bukenya, 2010) who require information and knowledge from different agricultural
knowledge and information systems to meet their livelihood. Further extension in a much
broader role is targeted to meet various social challenges such as poverty alleviation, natural
resource management, social equity (gender) and a focus on food security at the national level,
and at the individual and community level. Hence extension offers a solution to the social
challenges by involving a wider set of stakeholders to meet the varied needs of the farmers
(Christoplos, 2010, Swanson, 2006, Rivera and Alex, 2004, Swanson et al.; 1997, Bukenya, 2010).
Rivera (1997).
The capacities of extension and advisory services are strengthened to play much wider roles to
increase their relevance to contemporary agriculture and rural development needs, which are
termed as ‘extension plus’ concept (Sulaiman and Hall 2004a, 2004b, Sulaiman 2012). Although
success has been achieved in designing gender sensitive extension system, if the agricultural
technologies developed, and disseminated are not in accordance with the needs and preferences
of women, the system cannot be sustained. Therefore, a “gender-responsive agricultural
research, development, and extension system has to address the needs of women and men as
both of them are clients and actors” (Meinzen-Dick et al., 2011) in the development process.
1.4.3 Supporting the Rural Livelihood
Since the evolution of modern agricultural extension services, endless debates were mooted on
the nature of the ‘role’ of extension, and on ‘work’ of extension (Davis, 2008:16, Farrington,
2002:6, Roling, 1988, Christoplos, 1996: 5), for advancing new techniques, new knowledge and
new technology to the farmers from the research, for the purpose of increasing the agricultural
production. Nonetheless, the present extension system is confronted with the challenges of ‘who
it is serving’ and “how sustainable are the livelihoods that it is supporting” (Christoplos, 1996: 3).
In support of the broader view of the extension agenda, the focus shifted from mere transferring
of technology to supporting rural livelihood
The goals of extension always guided towards the action and customized to the ‘specific life
situations, power positions, and developmental philosophies’ (Nagel, 1997). Since the inception
12