Edited by Kristin Davis, Suresh C. Babu, and Catherine Ragasa Agricultural Extension Global Status and Performance in Selected Countries Agricultural Extension Global Status and Performance in Selected Countries Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Davis, Kristin, editor. | Babu, Suresh Chandra, editor. | Ragasa, Catherine, editor. Title: Agricultural extension : global status and performance in selected countries / Kristin Davis, Suresh C. Babu, Catherine Ragasa. Description: Washington, DC : International Food Policy Research Institute, [2020] | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020021712 (print) | LCCN 2020021713 (ebook) | ISBN 9780896293755 (paperback) | ISBN 9780896293779 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Agricultural extension work—Developing countries. | Agricultural extension work—Evaluation. | Agricultural extension work— Brazil. | Agricultural extension work—Uganda. | Agricultural extension work—Ethiopia. | Agricultural extension work—Malawi. | Agricultural extension work—Congo (Democratic Republic) Classification: LCC S544.6 .A26 2020 (print) | LCC S544.6 (ebook) | DDC 630.71/5—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020021712 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020021713 Cover Design: Jason Chow/IFPRI Project Manager: John Whitehead Book Layout: BookMatters About IFPRI The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), a CGIAR Research Center established in 1975, provides research-based policy solutions to sustainably reduce poverty and end hunger and malnutrition. IFPRI’s stra- tegic research aims to foster a climate-resilient and sustainable food supply; promote healthy diets and nutrition for all; build inclusive and efficient mar- kets, trade systems, and food industries; transform agricultural and rural econ- omies; and strengthen institutions and governance. Gender is integrated in all the Institute’s work. Partnerships, communications, capacity strengthening, and data and knowledge management are essential components to translate IFPRI’s research from action to impact. The Institute’s regional and country programs play a critical role in responding to demand for food policy research and in delivering holistic support for country-led development. IFPRI collabo- rates with partners around the world. About IFPRI’s Peer Review Process IFPRI books are policy-relevant publications based on original and innova- tive research conducted at IFPRI. All manuscripts submitted for publica- tion as IFPRI books undergo an extensive review procedure that is managed by IFPRI’s Publications Review Committee (PRC). Upon submission to the PRC, the manuscript is reviewed by a PRC member. Once the manuscript is considered ready for external review, the PRC submits it to at least two exter- nal reviewers who are chosen for their familiarity with the subject matter and the country setting. Upon receipt of these blind external peer reviews, the PRC provides the author with an editorial decision and, when necessary, instructions for revision based on the external reviews. The PRC reassesses the revised manuscript and makes a recommendation regarding publication to the director general of IFPRI. With the director general’s approval, the manu- script enters the editorial and production phase to become an IFPRI book. Agricultural Extension Global Status and Performance in Selected Countries Edited by Kristin Davis, Suresh C. Babu, and Catherine Ragasa A Peer-Reviewed Publication International Food Policy Research Institute Washington, DC Copyright © 2020 International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). This publication is licensed for use under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Subject to attribution, you are free to share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format), adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) for any purpose, even commercially. Third-party content: The International Food Policy Research Institute does not necessarily own each component of the content contained within the work. The International Food Policy Research Institute therefore does not warrant that the use of any third-party-owned individual component or part contained in the work will not infringe on the rights of those third parties. The risk of claims resulting from such infringement rests solely with you. If you wish to re-use a component of the work, it is your responsibility to determine whether permission is needed for that re-use and to obtain permission from the copyright owner. Examples of components can include, but are not limited to, tables, figures, or images. Recommended citation: Davis, K., S. C. Babu, and C. Ragasa. 2020. Agricultural Extension: Global Status and Performance in Selected Countries. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. https://doi .org/10.2499/9780896293755. This is a peer-reviewed publication. Any opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and are not necessarily representative of or endorsed by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on the maps do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by IFPRI. International Food Policy Research Institute, 1201 Eye Street, NW, 12th floor, Washington, DC 20005 USA, Telephone: +1-202-862-5600, www.ifpri.org ISBN: 978-0-89629-375-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896293755 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data may be found on page ii. vii CONTENTS List of Tables, Figures, and Boxes ix Executive Summary xv Abbreviations and Acronyms xxiii Foreword xxix Preface xxxiii Acknowledgments xxxv Chapter 1 Introduction and Motivation 1 Kristin Davis, Suresh C. Babu, and Catherine Ragasa Part 1: Global Assessment of Extension Characteristics Chapter 2 Global Trends in Extension Provision, Staffing, and Methods 21 Kristin Davis and Gary Alex Chapter 3 Comparison of National Extension Systems: Application of the Best-Fit Framework 53 Kristin Davis Part 2: Performance of Extension Systems Chapter 4 Brazil 99 Sonia Maria Pessoa Pereira Bergamasco, Ricardo Serra Borsatto, Carolina Rios Thomson, Kristin Davis, and Suresh C. Babu Chapter 5 Uganda 139 Ephraim Nkonya, Nana Afranaa Kwapong, Edward Kato, Patience Rwamigisa, Bernard Bashaasha, and Margaret Mangheni Chapter 6 Ethiopia 185 Guush Berhane, Catherine Ragasa, Gashaw Tadesse Abate, and Thomas Woldu Assefa Chapter 7 Malawi 225 Catherine Ragasa and Catherine Mthinda Chapter 8 Democratic Republic of the Congo 265 Catherine Ragasa and John Ulimwengu Chapter 9 Conclusions and Policy Implications 313 Kristin Davis, Catherine Ragasa, and Suresh C. Babu Contributors 333 Index 335 viii CONTENTS ix LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES, AND BOXES Tables 1.1 Empirical basis of the studies included in the book 10 2.1 Summary of major global extension studies 23 2.2 Data collected by University of Illinois, Food and Agriculture Organization, and Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services 24 2.3 Organizational responses received by region, Food and Agriculture Organization, and Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services 26 2.4 Legal status of extension organizations, 1991 and 2012 28 2.5 Total staff by type of organization, 2012 30 2.6 Percentage of time and resources allocated to clientele groups by extension organizations by region in 1991 (%) 37 2.7 Clientele served (targeted) by type of organization in 2009 (%) 38 2A.1 Numbers of extension staff by country, 1981, 1991, and 2012 48 3.1 Summary of country extension status based on best-fit framework characteristics 56 3.2 Potential indicators, data sources, availability by best-fit dimension 88 4.1 Weights and descriptions for the different indicators 103 4.2 Description of the evaluation criteria used to discuss the PNATER assessment 105 5.1 Datasets used in this chapter 158 5.2 Type of econometric models used 159 5.3 Covariates and their expected signs for share of farmers and female farmers served 160 5.4 Selected districts and performance of rural services development under the geopolitical zones 163 5.5 Type of extension service providers across regions 163 5.6 Gender of agricultural extension agents 164 5.7 Age and education level of providers 165 5.8 Farmers in the area of jurisdiction of agricultural extension agents 166 5.9 Major topics promoted 166 5.10 Institutional affiliation of providers of extension services 167 5.11 Participation in NAADS training and farmer groups (%) 168 5.12 Demand-driven and supply-driven provision of advisory services 169 5.13 Type of extension messages given by providers, by their affiliation (%) 170 5.14 Determinants of proportion of farmers served by extension providers in the community 172 5.15 Farmers across levels of rural service development groups 173 5.16 Determinants of type of farmer targeted by provider (marginal effects) 174 5.17 Determinants of technology provided by extension provider (marginal effects) 175 6.1 Datasets used in this chapter 188 6.2 Historical evolution of agricultural extension services in Ethiopia 192 6.3 Milestones in Ethiopia’s agricultural extension services since 1950 200 6.4 Incentives, work resources, and environment for development agents 203 6.5 Historical evolution of research–extension–farmers links in Ethiopia 208 x LiST Of TabLES, figurES, aNd bOxES 6.6 Technologies or practices promoted by development agents 212 6.7 Recipients’ assessment of quality of agricultural extension services provided in the past 12 months, 2011 and 2013, percent 212 7.1 Datasets used in this chapter 228 7.2 Proportion of frontline workers by last time they received professional training, 2010–2016 (%) 240 7.3 Farmers’ feedback on the latest advice received from agricultural extension service providers 249 8.1 Methods used to collect data for this study 268 8.2 Major policies after colonial period affecting agriculture and extension system 274 8.3 Distribution of sample organizations and agents interviewed 282 8.4 Distribution of extension agents based on perception on supervision (n = 162 agents) 283 8.5 Distribution of agents by type of organization and level of education (%) 285 8.6 Distribution of agents by training received and organization type (%) 285 8.7 Descriptive statistics of financial compensation received for extension provision (Congolese francs) 288 8.8 Distribution of extension organizations by external funds received (%) 288 8.9 Distribution of extension agents by transportation challenges 289 8.10 Distribution of sample villages and extension visits by number of visits 295 9.1 Models and examples of innovative financing for extension 326 Figures 1.1 Different levels of assessment of extension services 5 1.2 Best-fit framework for analyzing and designing pluralistic extension services 7 2.1 Public sector agricultural extension funding and delivery alternatives 27 LiST Of TabLES, figurES, aNd bOxES xi 2.2 Extension staff positions by type of organization 31 2.3 Share by education level by organization type (percentage of total) 32 2.4 Average education across sectors of field-level extension staff by gender, 2009 33 2.5 Extension clientele word cloud 34 2.6 Share of women in extension positions across organizations (%) 36 2.7 Allocation of time by field extension or advisory staff, 2009 39 2.8 Methods used by extension organizations, 1991 41 2.9 Share of field extension workers with Internet access in their offices, 2009 44 3.1 Net annual salary of agricultural extension service professionals in the public sector in South America (US$) 77 3.2 Agriculture extension service methodologies used in Argentina, Chile, and Colombia (%) 79 4.1 Geographic locations of the study territories in Brazil, 2017 101 4.2 The decentralized system of extension services in Brazil 112 4.3 Alto Jequitinhonha’s results for extension services, 2017 115 4.4 Cantuquiriguaçu’s results for extension services, 2017 118 4.5 Pontal do Paranapanema’s results for extension services, 2017 120 4.6 São Paulo’s Southwestern’s results for extension services, 2017 121 4.7 Vale do Ribeira’s results for extension services, 2017 123 4.8 Farmers’ national results for extension services, 2017 124 4.9 Extensionists’ national results for extension services, 2017 124 5.1 Institutional arrangements and linkages for the Single Spine Agricultural Extension System 153 5.2 Directorate of Agricultural Extension Services 154 5.3 Structure of the District Production and Marketing Department 155 5.4 Coordination of the system by the Directorate of Agricultural Extension Services (DAES) 156 5.5 Institutional affiliation of providers of agricultural advisory services (% of service providers) 161 xii LiST Of TabLES, figurES, aNd bOxES 5.6 Index of performance of rural services at district level 164 5.7 Awareness of NAADS training, groups, and priority enterprises 169 6.1 Development agents graduated from agricultural technical and vocational education and training colleges, by field of study (2003/2004–2014/2015) 197 6.2 Number of agricultural extension agents per 10,000 farmers in selected countries 198 6.3 A typical work week for a development agent in Ethiopia 206 6.4 Farm households and area covered by the public agricultural extension system (millions) and farm households receiving advisory services, 2004/2005–2013/2014 211 7.1 Malawi focus districts for the study of extension service providers and focus group discussions 230 7.2 Organizational structure of the MoAIWD 232 7.3 Agricultural extension governance structures in Malawi 237 7.4 Frontline workers who received professional training (%) 240 7.5 Time allocation of frontline workers during planting season (%) 243 7.6 Households receiving agriculture or nutrition advice from any source, 2016 and 2018 (%) 246 7.7 Access to extension services, 2016 and 2018 (%) 248 7.8 Household heads aware or knowledgeable of specific technologies, 2016 and 2018 (%) 251 7.9 Household heads adopting specific technologies, 2016 and 2018 (%) 251 7.10 Gap in household heads awareness versus adoption of specific technologies, 2018 (%) 252 7.11 Household heads participating in various methods or approaches, 2016 and 2018 (%) 255 8.1 Organizational structure of the agriculture policymaking process in the Democratic Republic of the Congo 271 8.2 Available funds for the National Agriculture Investment Plan by subprogram (%) 279 LiST Of TabLES, figurES, aNd bOxES xiii 8.3 Agricultural extension system in the Democratic Republic of the Congo 280 8.4 Distribution of extension agents based on frequency of interaction with other actors (%) 282 8.5 Structure of the Agricultural and Rural Management Council 296 Boxes 1.1 Defining agricultural extension and advisory services 3 6.1 Technology packages under the Participatory Demonstration and Training Extension System (PADETES)/National Agricultural Extension Intervention Program (NAEIP) 195 xiv LiST Of TabLES, figurES, aNd bOxES xv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY To address gaps in knowledge about agricultural extension, this book provides a global overview of the status of agricultural extension and advisory services, compares extension systems at national and regional levels, examines perfor- mance of extension approaches in a selected set of country cases, and shares lessons and policy insights. Drawing on both primary and secondary data, the book contributes to the literature by applying a common and comprehen- sive framework—the “best-fit” approach—to the data analysis and by updat- ing previous global extension services assessments. The conceptual framework used assists in standardizing the principles on which assessments are con- ducted and allows some comparability of characteristics and results across geographies. “The Best Fit Framework for Analyzing Agricultural Advisory Services Worldwide” by Regina Birner and colleagues, published by the Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension in 2009, looks at characteristics of extension and advisory services in the context of the frame conditions that affect the services. The key characteristics of extension include governance structures, capacity, management, and advisory methods. These character- istics are variables that can be changed by implementers in response to the prevailing contextual factors (the frame conditions) such as the policy envi- ronment, institutional linkages, and production systems. For instance, in a country with an extension policy advocating pluralism that assigns govern- ment the main role in coordinating the various actors, governance structures would assign government an oversight role, with a large mix of nongovern- mental and private actors participating. Part 1 of the book provides a landscape view of extension globally. It com- pares the recent status of extension and advisory services to the situation 20 to 30 years ago, using primary data from several global assessments that have not been analyzed before. In particular, the global landscape assessment exam- ines best-fit characteristics, including governance and legal status of extension providers, capacity in terms of staffing, and advisory methods and clientele. It also looks at trends and recent developments by comparing the earlier global assessments with a more recent one and by examining relevant literature. This global picture is complemented with descriptive secondary and pri- mary data on country and regional extension systems using the best-fit char- acteristics as the basis for analysis. The cases come from Latin America and Africa as well as Central Asia, South Asia, and Southeast Asia. Country and regional cases were chosen purposively based on availability of secondary and primary data relevant to the best-fit characteristics and how recently the data were collected (most data are no older than 2011). To go a step beyond the global picture and the descriptive cross- country analyses, Part 2 presents a set of in-depth country case studies that exam- ine the performance of extension services provision and the impact of exten- sion approaches using new primary and secondary data from Brazil, Uganda, Ethiopia, Malawi, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. These coun- try cases follow a similar structure, with the best-fit framework characteris- tics guiding the analysis. Due to different research teams and varied research designs, the specific indicators describing the conditions and elements of the extension system as well as those measuring performance and impacts have both similarities and differences. The book concludes with a set of findings organized by the main characteristics of the best-fit framework (that is, gov- ernance structures, capacity, management, and advisory methods), which provide a means to diagnose the status of extension services and compare countries and regions. The analysis of global extension systems in Part 1 shows that extension and advisory services have become much more pluralistic; systems in most coun- tries include both public and private agents (including civil society). There are greater numbers of extension agents today (more than one million), and they belong to a variety of different types of organizations from the private, nongovernmental, and public sectors, and even include lead farmers (essen- tially as volunteer extension agents). Reaching women and youth continues as a goal over the decades covered by the analysis. Newer trends include the use of information and communications technologies, a focus on nonrural clients, and market-oriented extension. xvi ExECuTivE Summary Regarding governance structures, in most countries the public sector— usually the Ministry of Agriculture, Food, or Rural Development—is respon- sible for the overall coordination and regulation of extension services. As extension systems become increasingly pluralistic, governments must address coordination and regulation of the many providers; Brazil (Chapter 4) and Malawi (Chapter 7) have established mechanisms to deal with such coordi- nation. The linkages between extension services, research, and farmer feed- back mechanisms remain weak in many developing countries. However, newer forms of innovation platforms that focus on market access and center on spe- cific value chains are showing some promise toward integration in several countries. Although more organizations are providing extension services, the coun- try cases show that pluralism of service delivery is far from complete. Service providers are dominated by international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), often with limited human resources and relying heavily on govern- ment extension workers. It is common to find international NGOs address- ing government resource limitations by providing mobility and operating funds for government extension agents, while the government provides the human resources. As a result of this limited pluralism, there is little competi- tion among service providers and hardly any expansion of options or choices for farmers. For pluralistic extension to work, policies must provide an overall frame- work in which multiple actors can operate. However, many countries do not have a specific policy for extension and advisory services; rather, they are usu- ally rooted in broader agriculture sector development policies. Brazil and Ethiopia, on the one hand, stand out as having good extension policies in place accompanied by appropriate implementation mechanisms. Both coun- tries showed commitment to using public funding for extension provision and have invested significantly in extension services. Malawi, on the other hand, has a national extension policy but struggled to fund and implement the pol- icy. Malawi focused most of its agricultural investment on the Farm Input Subsidy Programme, neglecting extension services and other rural services. Decentralization was tried in most of the country cases examined in this book as a way to increase accountability by bringing the services closer to the clientele. However, the legal transfer of responsibilities for agricultural services is often not matched by sufficient fiscal decentralization, and the autonomy of local governments is undermined by continuing dependence on the transfer of funds from the central government. Where such transfers have been reduced, and taxes and revenues collected by the local government remain meager, the ExECuTivE Summary xvii promises of decentralization often are not realized. For example, attempted reforms toward district-level agricultural extension services systems in Malawi lacked the resources and capacity to coordinate among different service pro- viders and engage with farmers. This is consistent with public expenditure studies in other countries; for example, in Ghana analysis of district budgets over time indicated that total average agricultural expenditures at the subna- tional level decreased from 11 percent to 6 percent of spending between the introduction of decentralization in 2012 and 2015.1 In most cases, financing of the services was insufficient and often donor- driven with limited thought to financial sustainability. The shortage of funds hampered the performance of extension services, especially in terms of meet- ing operational costs and sufficient staffing numbers. However, financing of extension services was shown to be quite diverse in Latin America. In Africa and Central Asia and the Caucasus, financing was donor-dependent and public sector–led, with some slight variations. For example, while Rwanda and Ethiopia did use donor funds, their extension programs were driven by national extension and agriculture strategies rather than by donor priorities. Country studies indicated a lack of cost-effective ways to increase coverage and provide services to many unserved or underserved areas, but found exten- sion services were duplicated in some areas. Nevertheless, there were promising moves toward cofinancing and farmer contributions in some Latin American countries and in Senegal. Certain advisory methods, such as the use of infor- mation and communications technologies and farmer advisers, were used to enhance sustainability in many countries. Capacity of extension services includes the staff numbers, training level, skills, infrastructure, and financial resources. Despite the presence of more than one million extension agents worldwide, the capacity of relevant indi- viduals and organizations—especially in Africa (with the exception of Ethiopia)—was, in general, low. Numbers of extension agents from the public sector were seldom sufficient for the job at hand, and there were high vacancy rates and turnover in some countries. Most countries had a poor extension agent-to-farmer ratio, and many of the extension agents in Africa struggled with mobility and poor transport infrastructure. Salaries were low, especially in the public sector, and there were few rewards or recognition. The founda- tional training for extension agents was usually focused on technical topics 1 D. Resnick. 2018. The Devolution Revolution: Implications for Agricultural Service Delivery in Ghana. IFPRI Discussion Paper 1714. Washington, DC: IFPRI. xviii ExECuTivE Summary and thus may have missed the functional skills needed for extension. Some exceptions were Central and South American countries that appeared to have well-established foundational and continuing education systems for extension providers. Several countries, such as India and Malawi, became interested in professionalizing their extension services by requiring certification and reg- istration, continuing education, and other elements of quality control, but implementation was challenging. More important than adding more exten- sion staff is the need to invest in greater operating budgets for carrying out extension services. Without funds to support mobility and operations, addi- tional staffing would be expensive and counterproductive. With regard to management, a number of mechanisms were used to ensure better management, such as market orientation or demand-driven services, and provide monitoring and evaluation (M&E). Many countries were putting in place demand-driven or client-oriented mechanisms, as well as M&E sys- tems, to ensure that extension services are more participatory and thus more relevant to farmers, in particular the underserved, women (for example, Latin America), and indigenous groups (for example, Brazil). The increasing use of multistakeholder networks, innovation platforms, and other demand strat- egies contributed to these efforts. Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 discuss the huge gaps in data, capacities, and funding necessary for these management tasks. Chapter 3 and Chapter 9 (“Conclusions and Policy Implications”) present selected indicators to provide guidance to policymakers to operationalize the collection of best-fit indicators at country or provider level. An increasingly wide range of methods was used to provide advisory ser- vices (see Table 3.1), and the use of digital approaches has increased. Farmer field schools—a participatory, group-based adult education approach—was widely used (Chapter 5 and Chapter 8). Group methods and demonstrations continued to be widely used, and private-sector extension and the use of lead farmers appeared to be growing and used worldwide. Market-oriented exten- sion has frequently and appropriately become an integral part of extension activities (Chapter 2). This was a big focus in Latin America and increasingly in Africa south of the Sahara. However, capacities and information to provide market-oriented extension were often lacking; Central Asian and Caucasus countries in particular struggled with the ability to provide such services. The conclusions provide a number of policy implications across the best-fit characteristics—implementing policies and programs to improve governance, reforming curricula to strengthen capacity, providing incentives to extension staff at various levels to improve management, and using appropriate advisory ExECuTivE Summary xix methods to enhance financial sustainability and achieve greater scale. Specific policy insights include the following: 1. Explicit policy or strategy for extension services is a key first step for better governance, funding, coordination, decentralization, and for overall effective design and implementation of extension services. Capacity for developing such country-specific extension strategies is weak or does not exist and thus needs strengthening in the national systems. 2. Public funding for extension services has been declining, current fund- ing remains unstable, and most of the poorer countries continue to depend on donor funding to run their extension systems. Although private-sector, NGOs, and farmer-based organizations (FBOs) play an increasingly impor tant role in extension services, the public role can- not be overestimated for reaching remote areas and marginal groups. A combination of funding sources and mixing innovative modern approaches with traditional mechanisms can increase the sustainability of extension services. 3. Given that extension and advisory services have become more pluralistic in developing countries, the need for coordination, quality control, and avoiding duplication of efforts becomes a key policy and programmatic challenge for the public sector. In addition, identifying the gaps left by the multiplicity of actors as they focus on specific target groups or value chains, and defining and coordinating the roles and responsibilities of these actors, is a major challenge for policymakers. Investment in such coordination capacity needs immediate attention in the public exten- sion system. 4. The organizational and institutional capacity to effectively reach the farmers in a country context is important to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the extension services provided by the pluralistic actors. The first set of policy and programmatic concerns relate to the sup- ply-driven nature of the extension services in several countries studied. To make them more demand-driven, there is need for identifying infor- mation needs of the producers in an organizational context, setting pri- orities for the extension services, and sharing the goals and approaches among the extension services providers. This implies building capacities of producers and especially producer organizations to identify and pri- oritize their needs. These activities will further help in the management xx ExECuTivE Summary of the limited resources for extension that is currently split among the pluralistic providers. 5. Assessing the performance of extension in meeting their clientele’s needs requires sound monitoring and evaluation systems in place, which remain weak in many countries. The learning and improvement and the trade-off between the quantity and quality of extension professionals can be addressed only through feedback provided by a well-capacitated monitoring and evaluation system. 6. Organizational and institutional innovations are needed on a regular basis for improving the capacity of the extension professionals, improv- ing their focus on the farmers’ problems, reducing their overburden with multiple objectives, and increasing the reach of extension in dif- ferent agroecological zones. Continuous improvement in the techni- cal, managerial, and leadership capacities of extension professionals that goes beyond foundational training should be a key part of the national extension strategy. 7. Innovative policy and programmatic approaches are needed to reduce the top-down approaches to information sharing. Increasing farmer participation in decision-making on what they would like the exten- sion services to provide will help move from a technology-transfer ori- entation to market-driven approaches to the extension services. Use of private sector, traders, volunteer farmers, lead farmers, and youth as entrepreneurs to increase the reach of advisory services will require ade- quate attention at the policy level. 8. Moving toward digital technology and its use for reaching producers on topics such as weather, technology, markets, prices, and other real- time information for solving farmers’ problems also require adequate policy and institutional arrangements at various levels. Digital technol- ogies and use of the Internet of Things can save resources at the exten- sion system and at the farmers’ level. Their use can be intensified both as extension delivery tools and as mechanisms for demand articulation, monitoring, and greater transparency and accountability. 9. Finally, the future of extension systems crucially depends on how they are built to meet such emerging challenges as climate change, preci- sion agriculture, nutrition and health goals, youth and gender, and other challenges related to the transformation of food systems and ExECuTivE Summary xxi to resilience building. In this context, the extension worker is seen more as a problem solver and a facilitator of services in the rural areas. Developing a policy environment to strengthen the capacity of the extension system to meet these emerging needs remains the most important development concern. The concluding chapter highlights several other policy, institutional, and programmatic recommendations for improving the global extension services. xxii ExECuTivE Summary xxiii ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ADD agricultural development division (Malawi) ADLI Agriculture Development–Led Industrialization (Ethiopia) ADPLAC Agriculture Development Partners Linkage Advisory Council (Ethiopia) AEA agricultural extension agent (Uganda) AEDC agricultural extension development coordinator (Malawi) AEDO agricultural extension development officer (Malawi) AEMO agricultural extension methodology officer (Malawi) AEO agricultural extension organization (DRC) AES agricultural extension service AFO association field officers (Malawi) AGP Agricultural Growth Program (Ethiopia) APES Agricultural Production Estimates Survey (Malawi) ARDPLAC Agriculture and Rural Development Partners Linkage Advirsory Council (Ethiopia) ARTP Agricultural Research and Training Project (Ethiopia) ASP area stakeholder panels (Malawi) ASTI Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators ASWAp Agriculture Sector Wide Approach (Malawi) ATA Agricultural Transformation Agency (Ethiopia) ATMA Agricultural Technology Management Agency (India) ATVET Agricultural Technical and Vocational Education and train- ing (Ethiopia) AU African Union CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme CAEO chief agricultural extension officer (Malawi) CAETS Controller of Agricultural Extension and Training Services (Malawi) CARG Agricultural and Rural Management Council (DRC) CIALCA Consortium for Improving Agriculture-Based Livelihoods in Central Africa CLAD Censored Least Absolute Deviations (Uganda) CNONGD National Council of Development NGOs (DRC) COCO Connect Online—Connect Offline (Ethiopia) COPEMECO Confederation of Small and Medium Enterprises of the Congo (DRC) CRE correlated random effects (Malawi) CSA Central Statistical Agency (Ethiopia) CSO Civil Society Organization (Uganda) DA development agent (Ethiopia) DAC district agriculture committee (Malawi) DADO district agricultural development officer (Malawi) DAECC District Agricultural Extension Coordinating Committee (Malawi) DAES Department of Agricultural Extension Services (Malawi) DAES Directorate of Agricultural Extension Services (Uganda) DAESS District Agricultural Extension Services System (Malawi) DAO district agriculture office (Malawi) DC district commissioner (Malawi) DHS Demographic Health Survey (Malawi) DLEC Developing Local Extension Capacity DRC Democratic Republic of the Congo DSP district stakeholder panels (Malawi) EARO Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization EMATER Minas Gerais Technical Assistance and Rural Extension Company (Brazil) EPA extension planning area (Malawi) FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FARA Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa FBO farmer-based organization FBS farmer business schools (Malawi) FEC Federation of Private Enterprises in Congo (DRC) xxiv abbrEviaTiONS aNd aCrONymS FFS farmer field school FISP Farm Input Subsidy Programme (Malawi) FOLECO Federation of Laic and Economic NGOs (DRC) FPPM Food Production, Processing, and Marketing (DRC) FSR Farming System Research (Ethiopia) FTC farmer training center (Ethiopia) GFRAS Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services GoE Government of Ethiopia GoM Government of Malawi GTP Growth and Transformation Plan (Ethiopia) GVAC group village agricultural committee (Malawi) IAR Institute of Agricultural Research (Ethiopia) IAR4D Integrated Agricultural Research for Development (DRC) ICT information and communications technologies IECAMA Imperial Ethiopian College of Agriculture and Mechanical Arts IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute IHS3 Integrated Household Survey (Malawi) IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (DRC) IP innovation platform (DRC) IPMS Improving Productivity and Market Success (Ethiopia) INERA National Agronomic Research Institute (DRC) ISFM integrated soil fertility management (DRC) IVR Interactive Voice Response (Uganda) LSMS Living Standard Measurement Survey (Uganda) M&E monitoring and evaluation MAAIF Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (Uganda) MaFAAS Malawi Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services MDA Ministry of Agrarian Development (Brazil) MEAS Modernizing Extension and Advisory Services Project MGDS Malawi Growth and Development Strategy MINAGRI Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries (DRC) MINRD Ministry of Rural Development (DRC) MINREST Ministry of Research, Science, and Technology (DRC) MKW Malawi kwacha MoAIWD Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development (Malawi) abbrEviaTiONS aNd aCrONymS xxv MoANR Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources (Ethiopia) MPP Minimum Package Project (Ethiopia) MoFA Ministry of Food and Agriculture (Ghana) MoLGRD Ministries of Local Government and Rural Development (Malawi) NAADS National Agricultural Advisory Services (Uganda) NABCO Nation Builders Corps (Ghana) NACDC National Agriculture Content Development Committee (Malawi) NAEIP National Agricultural Extension Intervention Program (Ethiopia) NAEP National Agricultural Extension Policy (Malawi) NAIP National Agricultural Investment Plan (DRC) NAP National Agricultural Policy (Malawi) NARO National Agricultural Research (Uganda) NASFAM National Association of Smallholder Farmers of Malawi NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development (DRC) NGO nongovernmental organization NRC National Resources College (Malawi) OECD Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development PADEP Peasant Agricultural Development Program (Ethiopia) PADETES Participatory Demonstration and Training Extension System (Ethiopia) PNATER National Policy for Technical Assistance and Rural Extension (Brazil) PRONAF National Program for Family Agriculture (Brazil) PSNP Productive Safety Net Program (Ethiopia) RCBP Rural Capacity Building Project (Ethiopia) RED Research–Extension Division (Ethiopia) REFAC Research–Extension–Farmers Linkage Advisory Council (Ethiopia) RELC Research–Extension Liaison Committee (Ethiopia) RPO rural producer organization SANE Strengthening Agricultural and Nutrition Extension project (Malawi) SAPP Sustainable Agriculture Promotion Programme (Malawi) SENAFIC National Fertilizer Agency (DRC) SENAMA National Mechanization Agency (DRC) xxvi abbrEviaTiONS aNd aCrONymS SENASEM National Seed Agency (DRC) SMS subject matter specialist SNNP Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Region (Ethiopia) SNV national extension service (DRC) SSA-CP Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Program (DRC) SSES Single Spine Agricultural Extension System (Uganda) TSBF-CIAT Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Research Area of the International Center for Tropical Agriculture UNDP United Nations Development Programme USAID United States Agency for International Development VAC village agriculture committee (Malawi) VDC village development committee (Malawi) YEA Youth Employment Agency (Ghana) ZARDIs Zonal Agricultural Research and Development Institutes (Uganda) abbrEviaTiONS aNd aCrONymS xxvii xxix FOREWORD By Gary Alex At the global level, it is well recognized that social resilience, poverty reduc- tion, natural resource conservation, and adaptation to climate change should be safeguarded. Achieving this, however, depends on a substantial transforma- tion of agricultural extension and advisory services which, in turn, will rely on high-quality information and knowledge sharing for farmers in rural commu- nities, particularly with reference to farm productivity. The agenda, therefore, must be such that it incorporates an evaluation of extension services among the world’s more than 500 million family farms. Growing up in a farming community in the United States in the mid-twentieth century was an exciting experience. It inspired in me a strong responsibility to cultivate the land. In the United States, change came about with speed when surpluses constrained farm incomes and food prices. While famine remained a threat to many parts of the globe, we on the farm in the United States were proud to be helping “feed the world.” Information on new technologies and innovations in management methods were brought home by way of various sources—from magazines on farming, to radio, to input and equipment dealers, to county fairs, and to vocational agriculture courses. A particularly effective source of information comes to mind: a series of eve- ning seminars, presented by agriculture specialists (that is, mostly input deal- ers) and coordinated into extension services. This, as well as the many other sources of information relating to farming, left in me a lasting impression, especially in terms of the potential that extension services can provide. Robert Bertram, chief scientist of the United States Agency for International Development, noted in a 2017 workshop that “extension is all about providing farmers with options.” The novel technological development of the Green Revolution brought about investment in extension services, pro- viding farmers information on the ways to increase productivity (for example, new seed varieties and fertilizers). Donor funding further helped to estab- lish or expand many such services in the public domain. Although the over- all effort was successful, the metrics to assess the impact of extension services were often challenging. Assessing impacts and effectiveness of extension systems is a daunting challenge. They differ in the categories of farmers and other clients served; use different approaches and strategies; deal with different crops, livestock, rural enterprises, and farming systems; and face scale issues in serving the whole rural sector. The history of extension services programs has been fairly tur- bulent. They initially had been considered as public, top-down, technology- transfer activities. While sometimes neglected, there are diverse approaches that also include participatory methods such as facilitation, adult education, and local capacity development. “Silver bullet” solutions have proved detri- mental, whereby specific approaches are widely replicated without regard to local situations. Many public extension services programs have relied on poorly trained field staff, dysfunctional public-sector bureaucracies, and an overdependency on funding from donors. A few sustainable extensions have nevertheless emerged, especially in Asia; while others have declined as a result of shrinking donor funding. As a result, the overall state of extension services—difficult to assess and document—is at a critical crossroads. In the 1990s the informal cooperation of the Neuchâtel Group provided a means to rethink the nature of extension services programs, an effort that led to the general consensus that they should be participatory, market focused, pluralistic, decentralized, client oriented, well monitored, and sustainable. This, in turn, has led to the concept of best practices as well as the need to recognize the essentiality of tailoring extension services to local needs and conditions—that is, “best-fit” practices. This book forms the basis for these. The contributions in this volume build on the experiences of the Food and Agriculture Organization, the Neuchâtel initiative, and the Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services in seeking the way forward to foster revitalized rural and extension services. The ability to systematically and objectively assess the function of such services and their impact is, however, fundamental to this effort. While clearly a challenge, rigorous assessments and evaluations will strengthen the case for further investments in rural and extension services as well as identify systems in need of reform and their effective management. xxx fOrEwOrd Evaluations of extension and advisory services, while understood today as being pluralistic knowledge and information services, tend to be empirical. They are undertaken in rural areas, as little more than a farmer-to-farmer information exchange or as more complex multi-institutional networks in commercialized agricultural systems. Few doubt the need for the development of effective extension services programs, although serious effort to strategi- cally foster this has been scarce. Many countries have adopted the concept of a best-practice design for extension services programs, while at the same time embracing the prin- ciples generally considered for effective and sustainable rural extensions. Nevertheless, the implementation of these has fallen behind. As reflected throughout this book, most countries have neither moved to dynamically develop extension services to serve the various client groups, agricultural sys- tems, and off-farm stakeholders and participants, nor have they encouraged the effectiveness and sustainability of agricultural knowledge and informa- tion services. The information and cases described herein provide a wealth of experience in terms of understanding and evaluating extension services. There is, as yet, no simple set of dashboard indicators for such assessments. Nevertheless, the tools provided in this book will complement those that are applied to assess the level of satisfaction of and the effectiveness of extension services for the small farmer, the sustainability of financing by constituency, and the extent of social benefits. fOrEwOrd xxxi xxxiii PREFACE Public extension remains as relevant to increasing agricultural productiv- ity in developing countries today as it was decades ago, despite the emergence of other types of rural advisory services providers and recent developments in digital information and communications. As the authors of this informa- tive global review of extension services point out, even where the private sec- tor or nongovernmental organizations are involved in extension efforts, they all work with and rely on public extension. Yet public extension systems have been woefully neglected by most national governments and the global devel- opment community for the last three decades. This book offers an excellent mix of case studies that remind us of the consequences of this neglect while also showing us a more hopeful vision of how effective extension systems could be, if better financed and coordinated. The authors understand the budgetary constraints facing governments and international financiers and thus emphasize the need for “best-fit” solutions. With cost considerations paramount, significant attention is paid to private sector provision of extension, voluntary or lead farmer approaches, and digi- tal extension methods. Another important consideration for improving cost- effective extension systems is to make them more demand-driven—that is, providing advice on the issues most salient to farmers and thus more likely to be acted upon. The enumeration by the authors of policy and program options to improve public extension systems is comprehensive—reflecting the variability in chal- lenges faced and in the feasibility of improvements across countries. A strong message of the book is the need for improved coordination of rural advi- sory services, which can help to address increasing pluralism in providers, decentralization of services, and the current disconnect between research and extension. This book serves as an excellent source of information and inspiration for those interested in how the world’s smallholder farming sector can meet press- ing challenges, continuing to provide itself with food and income while con- tributing to meeting global challenges such as climate change adaptation and mitigation, land degradation, water scarcity, and malnutrition in all forms. Public extension will be called upon to play this connecting role. Frank Place Director, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets xxxiv PrEfaCE xxxv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This book was made possible, in part, through support from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets. The work relat- ing to extension systems in Latin America was supported by the Inter- American Development Bank and the Family Farming and Rural Territorial Development for Latin America and the Caribbean regional program of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The information from Central Asia was the result of collaboration between the Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services (GFRAS), team members of the Modernizing Extension and Advisory Services project, and the Central Asia and the Caucasus Association of Agricultural Research Institutions. The case study on Brazil in Chapter 4 was funded by GFRAS with the support of USAID and was carried out in collaboration with the Latin American Network for Rural Extension Services. The case study on Ethiopia (Chapter 6) was funded by USAID through the country strat- egy support program of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). The case study on Malawi (Chapter 7) was funded through the Government of Flanders, the German Society for International Cooperation, Ltd., USAID Strengthening Agricultural and Nutrition Extension, and the CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM), done in partnership with Wadonda Consult and the Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources. For the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Chapter 8), funding came from USAID through IFPRI. The opin- ions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID. For their significant contributions to the information and studies within various chapters, we would like to acknowledge the following people: • Chapter 2: Andrea Bohn and Burton Swanson, who compiled some of the data and contributed to the data collection and analysis, and an anony- mous reviewer who suggested the chapter. • Chapter 3: Botir Dosov (Central Asia and the Caucasus); John Preissing, Sergio Ardila, Francisco Aguirre, and Julián Buitrón (Latin America); Suresh C. Babu and Mahika Shishodia (India); Sam Oeurn Ke and Suresh C. Babu (Cambodia); and Pham Hoang Ngan and Suresh C. Babu (Viet Nam). PIM also supported preparation of the India, Viet Nam, and Cambodia papers. • Chapter 3: Three major projects contributed many of the country cases, including Modernizing Extension and Advisory Services (MEAS, https:// meas.illinois.edu/), Integrating Gender and Nutrition in Agricultural Extension Services (INGENAES, https://ingenaes.illinois.edu/), and Developing Local Extension Capacity (DLEC, www.digitalgreen.org /usaid-dlec/). We also thank two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and sug- gestions. Most important, we are grateful to all the people who have shared their precious time with us during the surveys and interviews: the women and men farmers, community and group leaders, extension agents, extension orga- nizations’ officers and heads, development agencies’ representatives, and gov- ernment officials. We dedicate this book to our partners in the different countries we work with. This volume is particularly dedicated to the late Dr. Ephraim Chirwa, for his devotion and legacy for quality teaching, research, and data collection for research-based policy solutions to development, and to the late Dr. Burton Swanson for his passionate lifelong work in extension globally. xxxvi aCkNOwLEdgmENTS INTRODUCTION AND MOTIVATION Kristin Davis, Suresh C. Babu, and Catherine Ragasa 1.1 Need for Better Understanding of the Status and Performance of Extension and Advisory Services Agricultural development is critical to the livelihoods of more than a bil- lion small-scale farmers and other rural populations in developing countries. Challenges such as low productivity, persistent food insecurity and malnu- trition, food price crises, natural resource depletion, changing and uncertain markets, environmental degradation, and climate change directly impact (and are impacted by) the agriculture sector and rural development. Agricultural extension and advisory services can help address these challenges by assisting farmers with advice and information, brokering and facilitating innovations and relationships, dealing with risks and disasters, and in many other ways (Babu and Joshi 2019; Kilelu et al. 2011; Hoffmann et al. 2009; Boteler 2007; van den Ban and Hawkins 1996). In the past, agricultural extension and advisory services (defined in Box 1.1) have shown significant and positive effects on knowledge, skills, income levels, technology adoption, crop and livestock yield, and productivity (Davis 2008), especially during the Green Revolution in Asia (Swanson and Rajalahti 2010). Studies of rates of return to extension generally show high numbers (85 percent on average), despite wide variation (Alston et al. 2000). More recently, several country-specific results have emerged as well. Empirical literature documents the positive effects of public expenditures on exten- sion services compared to those on input subsidies (Benfica, Cunguara, and Thurlow 2015; Armas, Gomez Osorio, and Moreno-Dodson 2012; Allcott, Lederman, and Lopez 2006; Rosegrant, Kasryno, and Perez 1998), and other investments, such as rural feeder roads or irrigation infrastructure in Uganda (Pauw and Thurlow 2015) and irrigation in Mozambique (Benfica, Cunguara, and Thurlow 2015). Rigorous time-series analyses show high returns and pov- erty reduction impacts of extension services in Ethiopia (Dercon et al. 2009). Nationally representative panel data in Malawi show that quality extension Chapter 1 1 and advisory services have contributed to greater farm productivity and increased food security (Ragasa and Mazunda 2018). Yet there has not been adequate documentation of policy and program constraints that extension services are facing, and there is limited evidence on what policy and program reforms are needed to increase the performance and impact of extension ser- vices on development outcomes. Extension and advisory services are complex to study because they are often part of other agricultural intervention programs. In part, due to the nature of their design and implementation, which includes technical, social, and educational elements, their assessment on development outcomes remains a challenge. Extension systems can be quite complicated even within national boundaries. This is because countries have different agroecological zones with varying production systems, natural resource endowments, and extension ser- vice needs. Moreover, most developing countries are moving from sole depen- dency on public extension systems to pluralistic ones, in which extension services are also provided by a plethora of actors, including nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), farmer organizations, and the for-profit private sec- tor. In a pluralistic extension system, service providers may have very differ- ent objectives, goals, and motivations. For example, in some cases, extension services aim to primarily increase yields and income, while in others they may strive for greater women’s empowerment through education and skill develop- ment. In still others, they may focus on increasing food security and nutrition outcomes. The increasing pluralism of extension in terms of types of organizations providing these services (and of their objectives, methods, and approaches) means that extension programs are becoming even more difficult to evaluate methodologically and to attribute causal impact on development outcomes (Ragasa and Mazunda 2018; Faure et al. 2016; Birner et al. 2009; Anderson 2007). Basic data are difficult to obtain because of the increasingly pluralistic and decentralized nature of today’s extension services. Public extension ser- vices are often subject to changes of policies of different governments because provision of extension services is not institutionalized through legislation. While policy and development communities recognize the importance of understanding the issues, challenges, and constraints facing extension and advisory services (Pye-Smith 2012), very few studies are available to gain a regional and global perspective and a view of the global status of extension ser- vices. Major data-collection efforts were undertaken in 1981, 1989, and 2009 (Swanson and Rassi 1981; Swanson, Farner, and Bahal 1990; GFRAS 2012; see Chapter 2). These studies provide basic detailed information, but this type 2 ChaPTEr 1 of information goes out of date nearly as soon as it is collected. However, it is a valuable set of information that allows comparison over time and across regions. This is especially the case because the information has never been ade- quately analyzed. Thus this book is an attempt to fill this gap. A second gap in the extension services assessment literature is the lack of common framework and comparison of assessments on national or regional extension systems. While many country-level assessments have been con- ducted, most of them are in unpublished and informal reports, and they have never had a common framework applied to enable cross-country compari- sons. Chapter 3 addresses this second gap. Information regarding the perfor- mance of extension services, linking national- or system-level assessments and BOX 1.1 Defining agricultural extension and advisory services Over time, the term “agricultural extension,” while still commonly used, is gradually being replaced by the term “agricultural advisory services,” indi- cating a less top-down approach that views farmers and other producers as clientele. Some have extended the term even more broadly to “rural advisory services,” to include sources of livelihood other than agriculture and greater focus on the facilitation and brokerage role beyond technology transfer (Davis and Heemskerk 2012; Faure, Desjeux, and Gasselin 2012; World Bank 2012; Swanson and Rajalahti 2010). Some refer to “nutrition and agricul- tural extension and advisory services” to include nutrition information pro- vision and behavior change communication for better health and nutrition outcomes (Fanzo et al. 2015; Kuyper and Schneider 2016). There are several definitions of extension or advisory services (see Faure et al. 2016). Other authors prefer to use the terms “communication” (Leeuwis 2004) or “facilita- tive approach” (Ingram 2008) to emphasize the role extension plays in facili- tating the negotiation between different actors to solve problems. For the purposes of this book, following Birner et al. (2009: 342), we define agricultural extension and advisory services as “the entire set of organizations that support and facilitate people engaged in agricultural pro- duction to solve problems and to obtain information, skills, and technologies to improve their livelihoods and well-being.” Throughout the book we use “extension services,” “extension,” “agricultural extension,” and “advisory services” interchangeably to mean this broader definition of these services, and we use “extension organizations” or “service providers” and “extension agents” or “extension workers” to refer to the set of organizations providing extension and advisory services and frontline workers with direct contact to the rural communities, respectively. iNTrOduCTiON aNd mOTivaTiON 3 program- and approach-level evaluations (as in Figure 1.1) is scanty. Many national-level diagnostic assessments are available and program- and approach- level assessments are emerging (see summaries by Faure et al. 2016; Kondylis 2019; Ragasa 2019; Ragasa, Spielman, and Place 2019). Chapters 4–8 look at performance of extension services in five countries and link three differ- ent levels of assessments using primary and secondary data—in some cases, including evaluation of their impacts. There are many ways to assess agricultural extension and advisory services, from simply describing what exists in a country to measuring and explaining variations of performance and impact. Figure 1.1 shows a continuum of differ- ent assessments and evaluations on extension services. The first set of assess- ments are at a system level (national or subnational) and provide diagnostic assessment of the contextual factors and policies, conditions, and character- istics of an extension system, usually conducted using descriptive, narrative, and qualitative assessment methods. The second set of assessments are at the program or project level, in which extension services are usually provided and bundled with other services and interventions. These are usually conducted using quantitative and/or qualitative impact evaluation methods. The third set are small-scale evaluations of pilots or field experimentation of a specific extension approach or design of an extension approach and are usually con- ducted using quantitative and/or qualitative assessment methods. Rigorous randomized controlled trials are emerging that provide useful insights on which design or approach of extension service provision works or does not work, and which has the greater impact or is more cost-effective (see summa- ries by Kondylis 2019; Ragasa 2019; and Ragasa, Spielman, and Place 2019). The objectives of this book are to assess extension and advisory services in a cross-country comparative context in the following two ways: 1. Provide a description and comparison of the existing extension services in the regions and countries under consideration focused on a set of characteristics; and 2. Provide an assessment of the performance of extension services pro- vision and impact evaluation of extension approaches in selected case study countries. Objective 1 addresses specific extension characteristics from the best-fit framework (these include governance structures, capacity, management, and advisory methods) and offers a global overview based on primary data and regional and country cases based on both primary and secondary data (Part 1 4 ChaPTEr 1 of the book). Objective 2 undertakes in-depth country case studies based on both primary and secondary data (Part 2 of the book). Part 2 attempts to illus- trate the three levels of assessments in Figure 1.1 in a particular country. Some country cases have richer illustrations of second and third sets of assessments than others due to the availability of primary and secondary data and past evaluation studies. 1.2 The Best-Fit Framework for Assessing Extension Services The importance of a comprehensive and reliable system of assessing extension systems and their reforms cannot be debated. Such studies help practitioners decide which factors influence the effectiveness of particular extension pro- grams, and what modifications need to be made for future improvement. In fact, it is important to build the capacity of practitioners to design extension systems that are most suited to contextual realities and harness the potential of NGOs, the private sector, and other stakeholders (Birner et al. 2009; Babu, Sette, and Davis 2015; Babu and Joshi 2019). To better analyze extension systems, a comprehensive framework that takes into account heterogeneity within and between countries is necessary FIGURE 1.1 Different levels of assessment of extension services System-level assessment and policy-level analysis Program- or project-level evaluation Approach-level assessments (pilots and field experimentation) Source: authors. iNTrOduCTiON aNd mOTivaTiON 5 to guide their assessment. Birner and colleagues produced such a framework in 2006 (Birner et al. 2009). The framework was designed for analyzing and designing pluralistic extension systems. Although it has often been referred to in the literature (for example, Herrera et al. 2019; Davis and Spielman 2016; Faure et al. 2016; Álvarez-Mingote and McNamara 2018), it has not been sys- tematically applied to evaluate and compare country extension systems or pro- grams. The best-fit framework provides an impact chain to comprehensively analyze extension and advisory services by examining the overall environment (frame conditions), the characteristics of the extension that are affected by the frame conditions, extension performance, primary outcomes in terms of farmer behavior, and the ultimate impact (Figure 1.2). The framework can be used to develop assessment tools for agricultural advisory services, to inform processes of reforming the services, and to guide interdisciplinary research. It is unique because it uses insights from different disciplines, which were previ- ously treated separately in the literature. The framework can help policymak- ers and analysts to move from theoretical discussions to an evidence-based best-fit approach. It helps users to disentangle elements of advisory services by distinguishing between the following extension characteristics: (1) governance structures, (2) capacity, (3) management, and (4) advisory methods (Birner et al. 2009). These four characteristics are all variables that can be manipulated by implementers in response to the prevailing contextual factors such as pol- icy environment and production systems. Thus they are important factors that can be changed by governments and implementing agencies to affect the performance of the system—and thus the ultimate impact. The “gover- nance structures” refer to the institutional setup of extension services. They include the role of the public sector in extension services, level of privatiza- tion, degree of decentralization, funding mechanisms, and coordination and linkages. “Capacity” refers to the human and organizational competencies in the system as well as the financial and physical assets. “Management” is the way in which extension services are managed within the respective gover- nance structures. This includes training and retraining efforts, organizational management procedures carried out, incentives and methods of performance assessment of individual agents, and monitoring and evaluation of the ser- vices. Organizational capacity and management are combined in several of the country chapters. “Advisory methods” are used by extension services field staff in interactions with farmers and other clientele. Our analysis focuses on these four choice variables because they are the factors that can be directly changed by extension agencies. It is rather more difficult to effect changes at the wider 6 ChaPTEr 1 policy environment or farming systems (contextual factors that affect the choice of extension characteristics). The logic of the best-fit framework is that users must first consider contex- tual factors or framework conditions (Boxes A–D in Figure 1.2) that influ- ence how extension should be structured and organized (Boxes E–H) to reach optimum performance (Box I). The ultimate impact of the services (Box K), however, depends on changes (in attitudes, opinions, knowledge, etc.) at the farm household level (Box J). The contextual factors, or frame conditions, are outside the control of extension and include the policy environment, capac- ity of potential service providers from all sectors, farming and market systems, and community aspects such as education levels and land size. The frame con- ditions affect the characteristics of the extension. Characteristics include gov- ernance structures, capacity, management, and advisory methods used. The FIGURE 1.2 Best-fit framework for analyzing and designing pluralistic extension services Frame conditions Other agricultural innovation system components Ability to exercise voice Fit Agricultural extension services’ characteristics Accountability Impact pathway Influencing factors Feedback line Policy environment • Political system • Agricultural policy/ development strategy • Objectives of advisory services A E I J K F G H B C D Capacity of potential service providers • State • NGO • Private sector Farming and market systems • Agronomic potential • Types of crops and livestock • Access to input and output markets Community aspects • Land size/ distribution • Education levels • Gender roles • Capacity to cooperate Governance structures • Role of public-private- NGOs in • Financing • Provision • Level of decentralization • Partnerships/linkages Management • Management style • Procedures • Monitoring and evaluation Capacity • Staff numbers • Training level, skills • Infrastructure • Financial resources Advisory methods • Number of clients • Specificity of content • Technologies used • Orientation (e.g., adult education) Performance quality of service provided • Content (needs and opportunity driven) • Targeting • Feedback • Timeliness • Relevance • Effectiveness • Efficiency Farm household outcomes • Capacity • Decision- making • Change of attitudes, knowledge, behavior Impact • Yields • Productivity • Income • Employment • Innovations • Distributional effects • Environmental effects • Empowerment • Gender-specific impact • Emergence/ strengthening of value chains Source: birner et al. (2009). iNTrOduCTiON aNd mOTivaTiON 7 characteristics lead to the performance of the system. The performance can be judged by indicators such as relevance, timeliness, efficiency, and so forth. Performance leads to behavior of farm households, such as changing attitudes or adoption of techniques. Based on the best-fit framework, this book analyzes and synthesizes new data that has been collected over the past five to ten years from a series of case studies examining the status and characteristics and, in some cases, the per- formance of agricultural extension and advisory services around the world. It provides practitioners and policymakers with descriptive information on extension services, makes cross-country comparisons using the best-fit frame- work, and overviews impact assessments of extension. The publication offers a common framework with which to examine the practices of countries and to make cross-regional and cross-country comparisons using the best-fit charac- teristics. Recommendations and policy implications are provided for improv- ing extension globally. Using the best-fit framework for analysis, the book provides overall guidance on the process of evaluating advisory services sys- tems while exemplifying global practices through various case studies. This publication is less an academic book than a guide on the process of assess- ments and a showcase of results. Not only is it intended as a general reference guide; the book sets the standard for policy analysts and managers worldwide who wish to apply similar systems-level evaluation methods in their country. 1.3 Organization of the Book This book is divided into two parts. Part 1 (Chapters 2 and 3) focuses on the global assessment of extension systems and the features of extension services that are referred to as “characteristics” in the best-fit framework. An overview of the global landscape is presented in Chapter 2, followed by a comparison of these best-fit characteristics at the country and regional level in Chapter 3. Chapter 2 analyzes governance structures, including the legal status of pro- viders, capacity (especially in terms of staffing), management, and advisory methods and clientele. Chapter 3 provides a synthesis of information from in-depth country and regional assessments that were conducted mainly since 2015. These assessments took place with various partners and projects; to pull out comparisons of the national systems, we applied the best-fit approach. This analysis provides a snapshot of extension services, zooming in at coun- try or regional level. It does not address the performance or the impact of extension services. The country cases in Chapter 3 were chosen purposively 8 ChaPTEr 1 based on availability of relevant data and how recently the data were collected (within the past 5 to 10 years). For the country descriptions of extension and advisory services, the studies had to contain recent and in-depth analysis on agricultural extension and advisory services at the country or regional level.1 Furthermore, the information had to include relevant data about the best-fit characteristics. Part 2 focuses on the performance of extension systems using in-depth country case studies from Brazil (Chapter 4), Uganda (Chapter 5), Ethiopia (Chapter 6), Malawi (Chapter 7), and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Chapter 8). These countries were chosen purposively based on (1) major knowledge gaps and relatively few assessments available; (2) availability of pri- mary and secondary data to analyze; (3) empirical application of the best-fit framework; and (4) diversity of systems to enable comparisons and contrasts. “Brazil” (Chapter 4) offers evidence related to implementation of a new exten- sion policy and system. “Uganda” (Chapter 5) provides a rich body of evidence on extension reforms over the years. The Ethiopia case (Chapter 6) represents the largest extension cadre and largest investments in extension systems in the continent and among the largest in the world, while “Malawi” (Chapter 7) and the “Democratic Republic of the Congo” (Chapter 8) represent cases with limited public investment in extension systems and an increasing role of non- government actors. The Democratic Republic of the Congo case presents a postconflict country with enormous agricultural potential. The DRC and Malawi also represent cases with limited availability of past assessments but recent new large-scale data within the best-fit framework in the past five years, which enabled the detailed analyses presented in this book. Overall, the countries selected present a wide spectrum of different sys- tems operating in two different continents. The book attempts to compare and contrast them and to synthesize the lessons learned. Table 1.1 shows the empirical basis of the included studies. These in-depth country cases thus pro- vide a good illustration and comparison of the types of methods, datasets, indicators, and analyses to conduct systems-level assessments of extension services. Furthermore, we include cases from various parts of Asia and Latin America in Chapter 3. Chapter 2 is global in scope and covers all regions. Admittedly, the regional balance, especially for the country case study chap- ters in Part 2, is not ideal, since African countries have a heavy focus and only 1 The oldest reports are from 2009; however, these country cases also have data from 2014 and later. iNTrOduCTiON aNd mOTivaTiON 9 TABLE 1.1 Empirical basis of the studies included in the book Book section Focus area/region focus Type of empirical data Dates Part 1 Chapter 2 global assessment of current extension programs. This part focuses on the features of exten- sion services that are referred to as “characteristics” in the best- fit framework described in this chapter: governance structures and legal status of providers, capacity in terms of staffing, and extension methods and clientele. Primary data from a 1980 survey, which was an update of an earlier 1975 survey, compiling informa- tion on extension staff numbers and qualifications, objectives, mechanisms for public participation in governance, and client groups served. Primary surveys from the faO 1991 data were gathered through a mail-type questionnaire sent to 154 faO member countries. Some 132 organizations in 113 countries responded. Questionnaires developed in English, french, and Spanish were sent out to key informants (heads of departments) in government extension departments in more than 160 countries. data were obtained from 347 organizations in 81 countries. Swanson and rassi (1981) faO 1991 (data collected in 1989) gfraS 2012 (data collected 2009–2012) Chapter 3 Comparison of these best-fit characteristics at the country and regional levels. Provides a synthesis of information from in-depth country and regional assessments that were conduct- ed over the past five years or so. These assessments took place with various partners and proj- ects; to pull out comparisons of the national systems, we applied the best-fit approach described in this chapter. it is a snapshot of extension services zooming in at the country or regional level. Number of in-depth reports, mainly out of extension projects and manuscripts and five country cases described in Chapters 4–8 in this book. mainly secondary sources of information (except for the five country cases in Part 2, which used primary data). various between 2012–2018; see Chapter 3 for more details Part 2 Chapter 4 brazil Survey of 1,000 farmers and 87 extensionists in 5 territories in 3 states (purposively selected for low human development index, high concentration of family farmers and rural settlements, presence of black farmer communities and indigenous populations, and municipalities with low economic dynamism). 2014–2015 10 ChaPTEr 1 the Brazil case comes from outside the African continent. Ideally we would have included country cases from all major regions of the world. However, the authors and editors were constrained by lack of available primary and second- ary data, available literature, and authors and writing teams who could write up their work. Recent lessons from large countries such as India and China are Book section Focus area/region focus Type of empirical data Dates Chapter 5 uganda Survey of 208 agricultural exten- sion agents done by ifPri and makerere university. Living Standard measurement Survey, nationally representative data collected by uganda bureau of Statistics. 2007 2016–2017 Chapter 6 Ethiopia household survey of 7,500 house- holds in selected regions (where the agricultural growth Program was implemented). Central Statistical agency annual survey Survey of 237 extension agents Survey of 896 extension agents 2011, 2013 2005–2017 2009 2017 Chapter 7 malawi Nationally representative survey of 3,001 households, 2 rounds Survey of 30 service providers and 71 extension agents, focus group discussions in selected commu- nities malawi integrated household panel surveys 2016, 2018 2017, 2019 2010, 2013, 2016 Chapter 8 democratic republic of the Congo interviews with 45 key informants Survey of 55 agricultural manage- ment Councils Survey of 181 community organi- zations Survey of 107 extension organiza- tion heads Survey of 163 extension agents Survey of 3,110 households in randomly selected treatment and control communities as part of the midline assessment of the food Production, Processing, and marketing project 2010–2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2014 Source: authors. iNTrOduCTiON aNd mOTivaTiON 11 documented elsewhere (Glendenning and Babu 2011; Babu et al. 2013; Babu et al. 2015). A recent volume (Babu and Joshi 2019) covers the current trends in extension reforms in the South Asia region. 1.4 Overview of Findings The global analysis of extension systems provided throughout this book points to a number of policy implications across the best-fit characteristics, implementing policies to improve governance and coordination, undertake curricula reform, provide incentives to staff, and use appropriate methods to enhance financial sustainability and to achieve greater scale. The analy- sis and case studies show that with regard to governance structures, exten- sion and advisory services have become much more pluralistic. There are more than 1 million public and private extension officers today, but their roles are becoming less clearly defined with the outreach of information and communications technologies, the use of lead farmers (essentially volunteer extension agents), and the use of other individual service providers in vari- ous agricultural value chains. The public sector, usually ministries of agricul- ture, is responsible for the overall coordination and regulation of extension. This coordination is becoming crucial to take advantage of the different types of providers and deal with the emerging challenges of the day such as climate change and malnutrition of all forms. The coordination and regulation of the many providers is now an issue that governments must address; “Brazil” (Chapter 4) and “Malawi” (Chapter 7) show innovative mechanisms to deal with such coordination. However, the linkages between extension services, research, and farmer feedback mechanisms remain weak (Chapter 3). For pluralism to work, policies are needed to provide the overall frame- work within which multiple actors can work. But many countries do not have a specific policy for extension and advisory services; these are usually rooted in broader agricultural sector development policies (Chapter 3). The findings indicate that Brazil and Ethiopia stand out as having in place the best exten- sion services policies and accompanying implementation mechanisms. Most countries lack an explicit extension policy, causing them to rely solely on gen- eral agricultural strategies to guide extension services provision. Financing of extension services is, in most cases, insufficient and often donor-driven with limited thought given to financial sustainability. The per- formance of extension services is hampered by a shortage of funding, espe- cially in terms of operational costs and sufficient staffing numbers. Country studies indicate that there is a lack of cost-effective ways to increase coverage 12 ChaPTEr 1 and provide services to many unserved or underserved areas. Furthermore, extension services may be duplicated in some areas by different sets of agents serving the same group of farmers. Nevertheless, there are promising moves toward cofinancing and farmer contributions in Latin America and Senegal. Certain advisory methods, such as use of information and communications technologies and farmer advisers, can also enhance efficiency of service provi- sion and thus financial sustainability. Capacity of extension services includes the staff numbers, training level, skills, infrastructure, and financial resources. Capacity levels in all the case studies were low in general. Numbers of extension agents from the public sec- tor were seldom sufficient for the job at hand, and there were high vacancy rates and turnover in some countries. Most countries have a poor extension agent-to-farmer ratio, and many of the extension agents in Africa struggle with mobility and poor transport infrastructure. Salaries are normally low, especially in the public sector, and there are few rewards or recognition. The foundational training for extension agents usually focuses on technical topics and may miss out on functional skills that are also needed for extension. With regard to management, there are a number of mechanisms that can be used to ensure better management such as market-orientation or demand- driven services as well as monitoring and evaluation (M&E). Many coun- tries are putting in place demand-driven or client-oriented mechanisms and M&E systems to ensure that extension services are more participatory and thus more relevant to farmers, in particular to the underserved, women (for example, in Latin America), and indigenous groups (for example, in Brazil). The increasing use of multistakeholder networks, innovation platforms, and other demand strategies are contributing to these efforts. Chapters 2 and 3 address the huge gaps in data, capacities, and funding to do so. Chapter 3 and Chapter 9 provide guidance to policymakers to operationalize the collection of best-fit indicators at the country or provider level, with some recommended indicators. An increasingly wide range of methods was used to provide advisory ser- vices (see Table 3.1), and the use of digital approaches has increased. Farmer field schools—a participatory, group-based adult education approach—are widely used today (Chapter 5 and Chapter 8). Group methods and demonstra- tions remain effective approaches; and private-sector extension and the use of lead farmers is growing and used worldwide. Market-oriented extension has frequently and appropriately become the focus for extension activities, partic- ularly along value chains (Chapter 2). This was a big focus in Latin America. However, capacities and appropriate information to meet farmers’ needs and iNTrOduCTiON aNd mOTivaTiON 13 provide market-oriented extension were often lacking; Central Asian and Caucasus countries in particular struggled with relevant ability to provide extension services. Reaching women and youth continue to emerge as trends over the past few decades in the analysis. Evidence from Uganda (Chapter 5) furthermore suggested the need to increase the number of female agents to exploit their great potential to reach women and the poor. Other newer trends in extension include the use of information and communications technologies, the Internet of Things, market-orientation, and urbanization of extension services. The concluding chapter draws several major policy insights. First, there is a need for an explicit policy or strategy for extension service provision that iden- tifies design and implementation issues along with funding and coordination mechanisms for effective delivery of extension services to clientele. Second, funding mechanisms must be optimized to increase the sustained financing of the extension services and to reduce donor dependency and funding uncer- tainty from political shifts. Combining traditional and innovative modern approaches to extension service provision can reduce the cost and increase effi- ciency of services. Third, increasing the pluralistic nature of extension services calls for better coordination of players in the system to avoid duplication and maintain quality of services. Fourth, sharing of organizational strategies and goals, jointly setting pri- orities for extension services, and managing resources are key programmatic aspects of running an extension system effectively. Fifth, for effective manage- ment it is important to have functioning monitoring and evaluation systems, both for assessing performance and for continuous learning and improve- ment of the extension services. Sixth, the technical, managerial, and leader- ship capacities of the extension personnel should be continuously updated for improving institutional innovations and to increase the reach to clientele in various agroecological zones. Seventh, the advisory method needs to be context-specific and should take into account the information needs of producers and their ability to absorb and use the information. While traditional means such as on-farm demon- strations are still effective, sharing technologies through digital technologies has been shown to be successful. Adopting a mixed-method means to increase knowledge access by farmers requires constant updating of advisory methods. Finally, the concluding chapter highlights several other policy, institu- tional, and programmatic recommendations for improving extension ser- vices globally. These include cross-cutting issues such as climate change, 14 ChaPTEr 1 nutrition, youth, and gender, and other challenges related to the transforma- tion of food systems that call for a new generation of extension worker who will be a problem solver and broker of knowledge rather than just a technol- ogy disseminator. References Allcott, H., D. Lederman, and R. Lopez. 2006. Political Institutions, Inequality, and Agricultural Growth: The Public Expenditure Connection. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3902. Washington, DC: World Bank. Alston, J. M., C. Chan-Kang, M. C. Marra, P. G. Pardey, and T. J. Wyatt. 2000. A Meta- Analysis of Rates of Return to Agricultural R&D: Ex Pede Herculum? IFPRI Research Report 113. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Álvarez-Mingote, C., and P. McNamara. 2018. “Evaluating Agricultural Extension and Advisory Services through a Governance Lens.” Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education 25: 71–86. DOI: 10.5191/jiaee.2018.25206. Anderson, J. R. 2007. Agricultural Advisory Services. Background Paper for the 2008 World Development Report Agriculture for Development. Washington, DC: World Bank. Armas, E. B., C. Gomez Osorio, and B. Moreno-Dodson. 2012. Agriculture Public Spending and Growth: The Example of Indonesia. World Bank Policy Research Working Papers. Washington, DC: World Bank. Babu, S. C., J. Huang, P. Venkatesh, and Y. Zhang. 2015. “A Comparative Analysis of Agricultural Research and Extension Reforms in China and India.” China Agricultural Economic Review 7 (4): 541–573. Babu, S. C., and P. K. Joshi. 2019. Agricultural Extension Reforms in South Asia: Status, Challenges, and Policy Options. London: Academic Press. Babu, S. C., P. K. Joshi, C. J. Glendenning, K. Asenso-Okyere, and R. V. Sulaiman. 2013. “The State of Agricultural Extension Reforms in India: Strategic Priorities and Policy Options.” Agricultural Economics Research Review 26 (2): 159–172. Babu, S., C. Sette, and K. Davis. 2015. “Private Technical Assistance Approaches in Brazil: The Case of Food Processing Company Rio de Una.” In Knowledge Driven Development: Private Extension and Global Lessons, edited by S. Babu and Y. Zhou, 105–124. Public Policy and Global Development series. London: Elsevier. Benfica, R., B. Cunguara, and J. Thurlow. 2015. “Distributional Effects of Public Investments in Mozambique.” Draft paper. Accessed August 9, 2017. www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu /resources/download/8636.pdf. iNTrOduCTiON aNd mOTivaTiON 15 Birner, R., K. Davis, J. Pender, E. Nkonya, P. Anandajayasekeram, J. Ekboir, A. Mbabu, D. Spielman, D. Horna, and S. Benin. 2009. “From Best Practice to Best Fit: A Framework for Analyzing Agricultural Advisory Services Worldwide.” Journal of Agricultural Extension and Education 15 (4): 341–355. DOI: 10.1080/13892240903309595. Boteler, F. E. 2007. “Building Disaster-Resilient Families, Communities, and Businesses.” Journal of Extension [Online] 45 (6). Article 6FEA1. Davis, K. 2008. “Extension in Sub-Saharan Africa: Overview and Assessment of Past and Current Models and Future Prospects.” Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education 15 (3): 15–28. Davis, K., and W. Heemskerk. 2012. “Investment in Extension and Advisory Services As Part of Agricultural Innovation Systems.” Module 3 of Agricultural Innovation Systems: An Investment Sourcebook. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://siteresources.worldbank.org /INTARD/Resources/335807-1330620492317/9780821386842_ch3.pdf. Davis, K., and D. J. Spielman. 2016. “A Global Update on the Status of Agricultural Extension.” Unpublished manuscript. IFPRI, Washington, DC. Dercon, S., D. Gilligan, J. Hoddinott, and T. Woldehanna. 2009. “The Impact of Agricultural Extension and Roads on Poverty and Consumption Growth in Fifteen Ethiopian Villages.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91 (4): 1007–1021. Fanzo, J., Q. Marshall, D. Dobermann, J. Wong, R. Merchan, M. Jaber, A. Souza, N. Verjee, and K. Davis. 2015. “Integration of Nutrition into Extension and Advisory Services: A Synthesis of Experiences, Lessons, and Recommendations.” Food and Nutrition Bulletin 36 (2): 120–137. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 1991. International Directory of Agriculture Extension Organizations. Rome: FAO. Faure, G., K. E. Davis, C. Ragasa, S. Franzel, and S. C. Babu. 2016. Framework to Assess Performance and Impact of Pluralistic Agricultural Extension Systems: The Best-Fit Framework Revisited. IFPRI Discussion Paper 1567. Washington, DC: IFPRI. Faure, G., Y. Desjeux, and P. Gasselin. 2012. “New Challenges in Agricultural Advisory Services from a Research Perspective: A Literature Review, Synthesis and Research Agenda.” Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 18 (5): 461–492. GFRAS (Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services). 2012. Master Worldwide Extension Study Database. Excel File. Lindau, Switzerland: GFRAS. Glendenning, C. J., and S. C. Babu. 2011. Decentralization of Public-Sector Agricultural Extension in India: The Case of the District-Level Agricultural Technology Management Agency (ATMA). IFPRI Discussion Paper 1067. Washington, DC: IFPRI. 16 ChaPTEr 1 Herrera, B., M. Gerster-Bentaya, I. Tzouramani, and A. Knierim. 2019. “Advisory Services and Farm-Level Sustainability Profiles: An Exploration in Nine European Countries.” Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 25 (2): 1–21. DOI: 10.1080/1389224X .2019.1583817. Hoffmann, V., M. Gerster-Bentaya, A. Christinck, and M. Lemma, eds. 2009. Rural Extension, Volume 1: Basic Issues and Concepts. Weikersheim, Germany: Margraf Publishers. Ingram, J. 2008. “Agronomist-Farmer Knowledge Encounters: An Analysis of Knowledge Exchange in the Context of Best Management Practices in England.” Agriculture and Human Values 25: 405–418. Kilelu, C. W., L. Klerkx, C. Leeuwis, and A. Hall. 2011. “Beyond Knowledge Brokering: An Exploratory Study on Innovation Intermediaries in an Evolving Smallholder Agricultural System in Kenya.” Knowledge Management for Development Journal 7 (1): 84–108. DOI: 10.1080/19474199.2011.593859. Kondylis, F. 2019. “What Have We Learnt from Evaluations of Extension Interventions for NRM Technologies?” World Bank Research Group. Draft PowerPoint presentation. https://ispc .cgiar.org/sites/default/files/files/events/NRM%20Workshop/Kondylis_lessonslearnt_ extension.pdf. Kuyper, E., and L. Schneider. 2016. Conceptualizing the Contribution of Agricultural Extension Services to Nutrition. Integrating Gender and Nutrition within Agricultural Extension Services (INGENAES) Discussion Paper. Urbana-Champaign, IL, US: INGENAES. Leeuwis, C. 2004. Communication for Rural Innovation. Rethinking Agricultural Extension. Wageningen, Netherlands: Blackwell Publishing. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) Development Assistance Committee. 1991. Principles for Evaluation of Development Assistance. Paris: OECD. Pauw, K., and J. Thurlow. 2015. “Prioritizing Rural Investments in Africa: A Hybrid Evaluation Approach Applied to Uganda.” European Journal of Development Research 27 (3): 407–424. Pye-Smith, C. 2012. Agricultural Extension: A Time for Change. Linking Knowledge to Policy and Action for Food and Livelihoods. Wageningen, Netherlands: CTA. Ragasa, C. 2019. Modeling the Effectiveness of the Lead Farmer Approach in Agricultural Extension Service Provision Nationally Representative Panel Data Analysis in Malawi. IFPRI Discussion Paper 1848. June. http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15738coll2/id/133285. Ragasa, C., and J. Mazunda. 2018. “The Impact of Agricultural Extension Services in the Context of a Heavily Subsidized Input System: The Case of Malawi.” World Development 105: 25–47. Ragasa, C., D. Spielman, and F. Place. 2019. “Innovation in Agricultural Extension and Advisory Services: Lessons Learned from Ongoing Research.” Presentation during the Self-Help Africa (SHA) learning event, Blantyre, Malawi, July 8, 2019. iNTrOduCTiON aNd mOTivaTiON 17 Rosegrant, M., F. Kasryno, and N. D. Perez. 1998. “Output Response to Prices and Public Investment in Agriculture: Indonesian Food Crops.” Journal of Development Economics 55 (2): 333–352. Swanson, B. E., B. J. Farner, and R. Bahal. 1990. “The Current Status of Agricultural Extension Worldwide.” In Report of the Global Consultation on Agricultural Extension, edited by B. E. Swanson, 43–76. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Swanson, B. E., and R. Rajalahti. 2010. Strengthening Agricultural Extension and Advisory Systems: Procedures for Assessing, Transforming, and Evaluating Extension Systems. Washington, DC: World Bank. Swanson, B. E., and J. Rassi. 1981. International Directory of National Extension Systems. Bureau of Educational Research, College of Education, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Van den Ban, A. W., and H. S. Hawkins. 1996. Agricultural Extension, 2nd ed. Oxford, UK; Malden, MA, US: Blackwell Science. World Bank. 2012. Agricultural Innovation Systems: An Investment Sourcebook. Washington, DC. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/335807-1330620492317 /9780821386842_ch3.pdf. 18 ChaPTEr 1 PART 1 Global Assessment of Extension Characteristics Part 1 focuses on several features of extension services that are referred to as “characteristics” in the best-fit framework (Chapter 1): governance structures and legal status of providers, capacity in terms of staffing, management, and extension methods and clientele. Chapter 2 presents a global landscape of extension services, followed by a comparison of the best-fit characteristics at country and regional levels in Chapter 3. GLOBAL TRENDS IN EXTENSION PROVISION, STAFFING, AND METHODS Kristin Davis and Gary Alex 2.1 Introduction This chapter is a landscape view of extension globally. It compares the recent status to the situation several decades ago, when earlier global assessments were conducted. In particular, we look at best-fit characteristics, including legal status and governance o