1

Extension Concept, functions, philosophy,

principle and process of extension and its
application in the development

Contents:
Page no.
1.Introduction..

1-5

2.Objectives Of Assignment

6-8

3.Details With Sub Topics...

9-12

4.Review Of Literature
5.Analysis.

2
11-16

6.Summary And Conclusion. 17-21

7.References..

22-28

Extension Concept, functions, philosophy, principle and process of

extension and its application in the development

Agricultural extension
.
Agricultural extension was once known as the application of scientific research and new
knowledge to agricultural practices through farmer education. The field of extension now
encompasses a wider range of communication and learning activities organised for rural
people by professionals from different disciplines, including agriculture, agricultural
marketing, health, and business studies.
Extension practitioners can be found throughout the world, usually working for government
agencies. They are represented by several professional organizations (such as APEN),
networks (such as AGREN) and extension journals (such as Journal of Extension).
Agricultural extension agencies in developing countries have received large amounts of
support from international development organisations such as the World Bank and the Food
and Agriculture Organization(FAO) of the United Nations.

Review Of Literature
Extension terminology
The term extension was first used to describe adult education programmes in England in the
second half of the 19th century; these programmes helped to expand - or extend - the work of
universities beyond the campus and into the neighbouring community. The term was later
adopted in the United States of America, while in Britain it was replaced with "advisory
service" in the 20th century. A number of other terms are used in different parts of the world
to describe the same or a similar concept:

Arabic: Al-Ershad (Guidance)

Dutch: Voorlichting (lighting the path)

German: Beratung (advisory work)

French: Vulgarisation (popularisation)

Spanish: Capacitacin (Training "Capacity Building")

Thai, Lao: Song-Suem (to promote)

Persian: Tarvij & Gostaresh (to promote and to extend)

In the US, an extension agent is a university employee who develops and delivers educational
programs to assist people in economic and community development, leadership, family
issues, agriculture and environment. Another program area extension agents provide is 4-H
and Youth. Many extension agents work for cooperative extension service programs at [[land-

PHILOSOPHY:
There is no widely accepted definition of agricultural extension. The ten examples given
below are taken from a number of books on extension published over a period of more than
50 years:

1949: The central task of extension is to help rural families help themselves by
applying science, whether physical or social, to the daily routines of farming,
homemaking, and family and community living.[1]

1965: Agricultural extension has been described as a system of out-of-school

education for rural people.[2]

1966: Extension personnel have the task of bringing scientific knowledge to farm
families in the farms and homes. The object of the task is to improve the efficiency of
agriculture.[3]

1973: Extension is a service or system which assists farm people, through educational
procedures, in improving farming methods and techniques, increasing production
efficiency and income, bettering their levels of living and lifting social and
educational standards.[4]

1974: Extension involves the conscious use of communication of information to help

people form sound opinions and make good decisions.[5]

1982: Agricultural Extension: Assistance to farmers to help them identify and analyse
their production problems and become aware of the opportunities for improvement.[6]

1988: Extension is a professional communication intervention deployed by an

institution to induce change in voluntary behaviours with a presumed public or
collective utility.[7]

1997: Extension [is] the organized exchange of information and the purposive
transfer of skills.[8]

1999: The essence of agricultural extension is to facilitate interplay and nurture

synergies within a total information system involving agricultural research,
agricultural education and a vast complex of information-providing businesses.[9]

2004: Extension [is] a series of embedded communicative interventions that are

meant, among others, to develop and/or induce innovations which supposedly help to
resolve (usually multi-actor) problematic situations.[10]

History
Origins of agricultural extension
Men and women have been growing crops and raising livestock for approximately 10,000
years. Throughout this period, farmers have continually adapted their technologies, assessed
the results, and shared what they have learned with other members of the community. Most of
this communication has taken the form of verbal explanations and practical demonstrations,
but some information took a more durable form as soon as systems of writing were
developed. Details of agricultural practices have been found in records from ancient Egypt,
Mesopotamia and China going back more than 3,000 years.
It is not known where or when the first extension activities took place. It is known, however,
that Chinese officials were creating agricultural policies, documenting practical knowledge,
and disseminating advice to farmers at least 2,000 years ago. For example, in approximately
800 BC, the minister responsible for agriculture under one of the Zhou dynasty emperors
organized the teaching of crop rotation and drainage to farmers. The minister also leased
equipment to farmers, built grain stores and supplied free food during times of famine.[11]
The birth of the modern extension service has been attributed to events that took place in
Ireland in the middle of the 19th century.[12] Between 184551 the Irish potato crop was
destroyed by fungal diseases and a severe famine occurred (see Great Irish Famine). The
British Government arranged for "practical instructors" to travel to rural areas and teach small
farmer how to cultivate alternative crops. This scheme attracted the attention of government
officials in Germany, who organized their own system of traveling instructors. By the end of
the 19th century, the idea had spread to Denmark, Netherlands, Italy, and France.
The term "university extension" was first used by the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford
in 1867 to describe teaching activities that extended the work of the institution beyond the
campus. Most of these early activities were not, however, related to agriculture. It was not
until the beginning of the 20th century, when colleges in the United States started conducting
demonstrations at agricultural shows and giving lectures to farmers clubs, that the term
"extension service" was applied to the type of work that we now recognize by that name.
In the United States, the Hatch Act of 1887 established a system of agricultural experiment
stations in conjunction with each state's land-grant university, and the Smith-Lever Act of
1914 created a system of cooperative extension to be operated by those universities in order
to inform people about current developments in agriculture, home economics, and related
subjects.

Four generations of extension in Asia

The development of extension services in modern Asia has differed from country to country.
Despite the variations, it is possible to identify a general sequence of four periods or
"generations":[13]

Colonial agriculture: Experimental stations were established in many Asian

countries by the colonial powers. The focus of attention was usually on export crops
such as rubber, tea, cotton and sugar. Technical advice was provided to plantation
managers and large landowners. Assistance to small farmers who grew subsistence
crops was rare, except in times of crisis.

Diverse top-down extension: After independence, commodity-based extension

services emerged from the remnants of the colonial system, with production targets
established as part of five-year development plans. In addition, various schemes were
initiated to meet the needs of small farmers, with support from foreign donors.

Unified top-down extension: During the 1970s and 80s, the Training and Visit
system (T&V) was introduced by the World Bank. Existing organizations were
merged into a single national service. Regular messages were delivered to groups of
farmers, promoting the adoption of "Green Revolution" technologies.

Diverse bottom-up extension: When World Bank funding came to an end, the T&V
system collapsed in many countries, leaving behind a patchwork of programmes and
projects funded from various other sources. The decline of central planning, combined
with a growing concern for sustainability and equity, has resulted in participatory
methods gradually replacing top-down approaches.

The fourth generation is well established in some countries, while it has only just begun in
other places. While it seems likely that participatory approaches will continue to spread in the
next few years, it is impossible to predict the long-term future of extension. Compared to 20
years ago, agricultural extension now receives considerably less support from donor agencies.
Among academics working in this field, some have recently argued that agricultural
extension needs to be reinvented as a professional practice.[10] Other authors have abandoned
the idea of extension as a distinct concept, and prefer to think in terms of "knowledge
systems" in which farmers are seen as experts rather than adopters.[14]

Communication processes within extension systems

The term "extension" has been used to cover widely differing communication systems. Two
particular issues help to define the type of extension: how does communication take place,
and why does it take place.[13]

] How communication takes place in an extension system: paternalism versus

participation
Early books on extension often describe a model of communication that involved the
transmission of messages from "senders" to "receivers". As part of this model, senders are

usually people in authority, such as government planners, researchers, and extension staff,
while receivers are usually farmers who are relatively poor and uneducated. Although this
model might include something called "feedback", it is clear that the senders are in control of
the communication process.
The transmission model of communication is closely related to the idea that extension
workers are the link (i.e. message carriers) between researchers (senders) and farmers
(receivers). Extension programmes based on this model has been described as "paternalistic";
in other words, the actors in the communication process have a parent/child or teacher/student
relationship. Other authors have used the term "top-down" to describe these programmes.
In many countries, paternalistic extension is gradually being replaced by more participatory
approaches, in which the knowledge and opinions of farmers is considered to be just as
important as that of researchers or government officials. Participatory approaches involve
information-sharing and joint decision-making. The terms "interactive" and "bottom-up" have
been used to describe these approaches.
The development of participatory extension requires a re-examination of the communication
process. At the present time, no single description has replaced the transmission model that is
referred to above, but two ideas are becoming widely accepted:

Communication in the context of participatory extension cannot usefully be described

in a linear manner with distinct groups of senders and receivers. Instead, extension
activities take place within a knowledge system consisting of many actors who play
different roles at different times.

Although some actors in the knowledge system have more authority than others,
communication usually involves a negotiation rather than a transmission. What takes
place is a dialogue, with actors collaborating in the construction of shared meanings
rather than simply exchanging information.

The related, but separate field of agricultural communication has emerged to contribute to indepth examinations of the communication processes among various actors within and
external to the agricultural system. This field would refer to the participatory extension model
as a form of public relations rooted two-way symmetrical communication based on mutual
respect, understanding, and influence between an organization and its stakeholders (publics).
[15]

Why communication takes place: persuasion versus education

Although extension programmes have many different goals, most programmes fall into one
of two basic categories:

systems of communication that aim to change the behaviour of rural people

systems of communication that aim to change the knowledge of rural people

There is, of course, a close relationship between knowledge and behaviour; changes in the
former often lead to a change in the latter.

If government policy-makers, project managers or researchers direct the topics addressed and
projects undertaken, then the purpose of extension is to change behaviour. This approach to
extension has been variously described as directive extension, social marketing and
propaganda.
If farmers and other rural people direct the extension towards their own needs, then the
purpose of extension is changing knowledge. This knowledge helps rural people make their
own decisions regarding farming practices. This approach to extension is closely related to
non-formal education and conscientization.

Objectives Of Assignment
Four paradigms of agricultural extension
Any particular extension system can be described both in terms of both how communication
takes place and why it takes place. It is not the case that paternalistic systems are always
persuasive, nor is it the case that participatory projects are necessarily educational. Instead
there are four possible combinations, each of which represents a different extension
paradigm, as follows:[13]

Technology Transfer (persuasive+paternalistic). This paradigm was prevalent in

colonial times, and reappeared in the 1970s and 1980s when the Training and Visit
system was established across Asia. Technology transfer involves a top-down
approach that delivers specific recommendations to farmers about the practices they
should adopt.

Advisory work (persuasive+participatory). This paradigm can be seen today where

government organisations or private consulting companies respond to farmers
enquiries with technical prescriptions. It also takes the form of projects managed by
donor agencies and NGOs that use participatory approaches to promote predetermined packages of technology.

Human Resource Development (educational+paternalistic). This paradigm

dominated the earliest days of extension in Europe and North America, when
universities gave training to rural people who were too poor to attend full-time
courses. It continues today in the outreach activities of colleges around the world.
Top-down teaching methods are employed, but students are expected to make their
own decisions about how to use the knowledge they acquire.

Facilitation for empowerment (educational+participatory). This paradigm involves

methods such as experiential learning and farmer-to-farmer exchanges. Knowledge is
gained through interactive processes and the participants are encouraged to make their

own decisions. The best know examples in Asia are projects that use Farmer Field
Schools (FFS) or participatory technology development (PTD).
It must be noted that there is some disagreement about whether or not the concept and name
of extension really encompasses all four paradigms. Some experts believe that the term
should be restricted to persuasive approaches, while others believe it should only be used for
educational activities. Paulo Freire has argued that the terms extension and participation
are contradictory.[16] There are philosophical reasons behind these disagreements. From a
practical point of view, however, communication processes that conform to each of these four
paradigms are currently being organized under the name of extension in one part of the world
or another. Pragmatically, if not ideologically, all of these activities are agricultural extension.
Objectives of extension education. The objectives of extension education are the expressions of
the ends towards which our efforts are directed. In other words, an objective means a direction of
movement. Before starting any programme, its objectives must be clearly stated, so that one knows
where to go & what is to be achieved. The fundamental objective of extension education is the
development of the people.
Agricultural extension in our country is primarily concerned with the following main objectives:
(1) The dissemination of useful & practical information relating to agriculture, including improved
seeds, fertilisers, implements, pesticides, improved cultural practices, dairying, poultry, nutrition,etc.;
(2) the practical application of useful knowledge to farm & home;and
(3) thereby ultimately to improve all aspects of the life of the rural people within the framework of the
national, economic & social policies involving the population as a whole.

Details With Sub Topics

Principles of extension education. The extension work is based upon some working principles &
the knowledge of these principles is necessary for an extension worker. Some of these principles, as
related to agricultural extension, are mentioned below.
1. Principle of interest & need. Extension work must be based on the needs & interests of the people.
These needs & interests differ from individual to individual, from village to village, from block to block,
& from state to state &, therefore, there cannot be one programme for all people.
2. Principle of cultural difference. Extension work is based on the cultural background of the people
with whom the work is done. Improvement can only begin from the level of the people where they are.
This means that the extension worker has to know the level of the knowledge, & the skills of the
people, methods & tools used by them, their customs, traditions, beliefs, values,etc. before starting
the extension programme.
3. Principle of participation. Extension helps people to help themselves. Good extension work is
directed towards assisting rural families to work out their own problems rather than giving them readymade solutions. Actual participation & experience of people in these programmes creates selfconfidence in them & also they learn more by doing.
4. Principle of adaptability. People differ from each other, one group differs from another group &
conditions also differ from place to place. An extension programme should be flexible, so that
necessary changes can be made whenever needed, to meet the varying conditions.
5. The grass roots principle of organisation. A group of rural people in local community should sponsor
extension work. The programme should fit in with the local conditions. The aim of organising the local
group is to demonstrate the value of the new practices or programmes so that more & more people
would participate.
6. The leadership principle. Extension work is based on the full utilisation of local leadership. The
selection & training of local leaders to enable them to help to carry out extension work is essential to
the success of the programme. People have more faith in local leaders & they should be used to put

9
across a new idea so that it is accepted with the least resistance.
7. The whole-family principle. Extension work will have a better chance of sucess if the extension
workers have a whole-family approach instead of piecemeal approach or seperate & unintegrated
approach. Extension work is, therefore, for the whole family, i.e. for male, female & the youth.
8. Principle of co-operation. Extension is a co-operative venture. It is a joint democratic enterprise in
which rural people co-operate with their village, block & state officials to pursue a common cause.
9. Principle of satisfaction. The end-product of the effort of extension teaching is the satisfaction that
comes to the farmer, his wife or youngsters as the result of solving a problem, meeting a need,
acquiring a new skill or some other changes in behaviour. Satisfaction is the key to sucess in
extension work. "A satisfied customer is the best advertisement."
10. The evaluation principle. Extension is based upon the methods of science, & it needs constant
evaluation. The effectiveness of the work is measured in terms of the changes brought about in the
knowledge, skill, attitude & adoption behaviour of the people but not merely in terms of achievement
of physical targets

10

EARNING & TEACHING IN EXTENSION

Extension is an educational process for bringing about the maximum number of desirable changes
among the people, which involves both learning & teaching & needs some tools or methods
commonly known as extension-teaching methods. It is, therefore, necessary here to understand
what is meant by learning, teaching & extension methods.
'Learning' is the process by which an individual, through his own activity, attains a change in his
behaviour. It is an active process on the part of the learner. The essential role of an extension
worker is to create effective 'learning situations'. An effective learning situation requires the
following essential elements:
1. An instructor (an extension worker, e.g. an extension officer or a village-level worker).
2. Learners (the farmers, the farm women & the youth).
3. Subject-matter (the recommended improved practices, such as the seeds of high-yielding
varieties, fertilisers, balanced diet, etc.)
4. Teaching material, such as a flannel-board, a black-board, charts, models, samples, slides, film
strips, etc.
5. Physical facilities, such as sitting accomodation, good visibility, etc.
The extension worker should skillfully manipulate the elements of the learning situation & provide
satisfactory learning experiences for the people. The farmer, the farmer women or the farm youth
are the focal points in the learning situation. The main aim of an extension worker is to bring about
a change in this behaviour of the people with the help of a judicious combination & use of different
elements. all the teaching should be carried out according to the needs & resources of the local
community or group.
'Teaching' is the process of arranging situations in which the things to be learnt are brought to the
notice of the learners, their interest is developed & desire aroused, i.e. they are stimulated to action.
for example, if we want to teach the farmers the use & advantages of chemical fertilisers, we do this
by conducting demonstrations on their fields, showing them how the fertilisers are applied, &
compare the yield of the fertilised crop with that of the crop to which no fertilisers has ben applied.
After seeing the beneficial effect of a fertilisers, the farmer is convinced & motivated to action &
starts using fertilisers regularly.
Extension-teaching methods. The extension-teaching methods are the tools & techniques used to
create situations in which communication can take place between the rural people & the extension
workers. They are the methods of extending new knowledge & skills to the rural people by drawing
their attention towards them, arousing their interest & helping them to have a sucessful experience
of the new practice.
A proper understanding of these methods & their selection for a particular type of work are
necessary.
Classification of extension teaching methods. (A)ACCORDING TO USE. One way of classifying
the extension methods is according to their use & nature of contact. In other words, whether they
are used for contacting people individually, in groups or in masses. Based upon the nature of
contact, they are divided into individual, group & mass-contact methods.
Individual-contact methods. Extension methods under this category provide opportunities for faceto-face or person-to-person contact between the rural people & the extension workers. These
methods are very effective in teaching new skills & creating goodwill between farmers & the
extension workers.
Group-contact methods. Under this category, the rural people or farmers are contacted in a group
which usually consists of 20 to 25 persons. These groups are usually formed around a common
interest. These methods also involve a face-to-face contact with the people & provide an
opportunity for the exchange of ideas, for discussions on problems & technical recommendations &

11
finally for deciding the future course of action.
Mass or community-contact methods. An extension worker has to approach a large number of
people for disseminating a new informaton & helping them to use it. this can be done through masscontact methods conveniently. These methods are more useful for making people aware of the new
agricultural technology quickly.
Important extension-teaching methods under these 3 categories are listed in the following chart.

Chart 1. Classification of extension-teaching methods according to

their use
Individual
contacts

Group contacts

Mass contacts

Farm & home visits

Method demonstration & result

demonstration

Bulletins

Office calls

National demonstration leader-training

meetings

Leaflets

Telephone calls

Conferences & discussion meetings &

workshops

Circular letters & radio

Personal letters

Field trips

Television,exhibitions,fairs,posters

(B)ACCORDING TO FORM. Extension-teaching methods are also classified according to their

forms, such as written, spoken & audio-visual. Some of the important methods under each of these
3 categories are given in Chart 2.

Chart 2. Classification of extension-teaching methods according to

their form
Written

Spoken

Objective or visual

Bulletins

General & special meetings

Result demonstration

Leaflets,folders,News articles

Farm & home visits

Demonstration posters

Personal letters

Official calls

Motion-picture or movies, charts

Circular letters

Telephone calls, radio

Slides & film-strips,models,exhibits

Analysis
Extension's role in sustainable agricultural development

Emerging challenges for sustainable agriculture

During the past fifty years, agricultural development policies have been remarkably
successful at emphasizing external inputs as the means to increase food production. This has
led to growth in global consumption of pesticides, inorganic fertilizer, animal feed-stuffs, and
tractors and other machinery.
These external inputs have, however, substituted for natural processes and resources,
rendering them less powerful. Pesticides have replaced biological, cultural, and mechanical
methods for controlling pests, weeds, and diseases; inorganic fertilizers have substituted for

12

livestock manures, composts, and nitrogen-fixing crops; information for management

decisions comes from input suppliers, researchers, and extensionists rather than from local
sources; and fossil fuels have substituted for locally generated energy sources. The basic
challenge for sustainable agriculture is to make better use of these internal resources. This can
be done by minimizing the external inputs used, by regenerating internal resources more
effectively, or by combinations of both.
Evidence is now emerging that regenerative and resource-conserving technologies and
practices can bring both environmental and economic benefits for farmers, communities, and
nations. The best evidence comes from countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, where
the concern is to increase food production in the areas where fanning has been largely
untouched by the modem packages of externally supplied technologies. In these complex and
remote lands, some farmers and communities adopting regenerative technologies have
substantially improved agricultural yields, often using only few or no external inputs (Bunch,
1991; GTZ, 1992; UNDP, 1992; Lobo & Kochendrfer-Lucius, 1992; Krishna, 1993; Shah,
1994; SWCB, 1994; Pretty, 1995).
But these are not the only sites for successful sustainable agriculture. In the high-input and
generally irrigated lands, farmers adopting regenerative technologies have maintained yields
whilst substantially reducing their use of inputs (Kamp, Gregory, & Chowhan, 1993; UNDP,
1992; Kenmore, 1991; van der Werf & de Jager, 1992; Bagadion & Korten, 1991). And in the
very high-input lands of the industrialized countries, farmers have been able to maintain
profitability even though input use has been cut dramatically, such as in Europe (Vereijken,
1992; Vereijken, Wijnands, Stol, & Visser, 1994; Van Weeperen, Rling, Van Bon, & Mur,
1995; Pretty & Howes, 1993; Jordan, Hutcheon, & Glen, 1993; El Titi & Landes, 1990) and
in the United States (Liebhart et al., 1989; NRC, 1989; Hanson, Johnson, Peters, & Janke,
1990; Dobbs, Becker, & Taylor, 1991; Faeth, 1993).
All of these successes have three elements in common. They have made use of resourceconserving technologies such as integrated pest management, soil and water conservation,
nutrient recycling, multiple cropping, water harvesting, and waste recycling. In all, there has
been action by groups and communities at the local level, with farmers becoming experts at
managing farms as ecosystems and at collectively managing the watersheds or other resource
units of which their farms form a part. And there have also been supportive and enabling
external government and nongovernment institutions, which have reoriented their activities to
focus on local needs and capabilities.
Most successes, though, are still localized. They are simply islands of success. This is
because an overarching element, a favourable policy environment, is missing. Most policies
still actively encourage fanning that is dependent on external inputs and technologies. It is
these policy frameworks that are one of the principal barriers to a more sustainable
agriculture (Pretty, 1994a). Figure 1 illustrates this chapter's area of discourse and its focus on
the interfaces between natural resources, local stakeholders, supportive institutions, and the
policy context.

13

Sustainability and levels of action

A necessary condition for sustainable agriculture is that large numbers of farming households
must be motivated to use coordinated resource management. This could be for pest and
predator management, nutrient management, controlling the contamination of aquifers and
surface water courses, coordinated livestock management, conserving soil and water
resources, and seed stock management. The problem is that, in most places, platforms for
collective decision making have not been established to manage such resources (Rling,
1994a, 1994b). The success of sustainable agriculture therefore depends not just on the
motivations, skills, and knowledge of individual farmers, but on action taken by groups or
communities as a whole. This makes the task more challenging. Simple extension of the
message that sustainable agriculture can match conventional agriculture for profits, as well as
produce extra benefits for society as a whole, will not suffice.
Sustainability is commonly seen as a property of an ecosystem. But Sustainability can be
seen from other perspectives, which are more relevant for extension. Environmental issues
emerge from the human use of natural resources. Sustainability can therefore be defined in
terms of human reasons, activities, and agreements. The definition of Sustainability then
becomes part of the problem because people need to agree on how they define Sustainability
and what priority they will give it (Pretty, 1994b).
In this approach, Sustainability is not a scientific, "hard" property which can be measured
according to some objective scale, or a set of practices to be fixed in time and space. Rather,
Sustainability is a quality that emerges when people individually or collectively apply their
intelligence to maintain the long-term productivity of the natural resources on which they
depend (Sriskandarajah, Bawden, & Packham, 1989). In other words, Sustainability emerges
out of shared human experiences, objectives, knowledge, decisions, technology, and
organization. Agriculture becomes sustainable only when people have reason to make it so.
They can learn and negotiate their way towards Sustainability. In any discussions of
Sustainability, it is important to clarify what is being sustained, for how long, for whose
benefit and at whose cost, over what area, and measured by what criteria. Answering these
questions is difficult, because it means assessing and trading off values and beliefs. Campbell
(1994) has put it this way: "[Attempts to define Sustainability miss the point that, like beauty,
sustain ability is in the eye of the beholder.... It is inevitable that assessments of relative
Sustainability are socially constructed, which is why there are so many definitions."
It is therefore crucial to focus on more than one system level (Fresco, Stroosnijder, Bouma, &
van Keulen, 1994). At the farm level, there is the farm household. At the above-farm level,
there are the collective stakeholders, who might or might not be organized for sustainable use
of the whole resource unit. In an irrigation scheme, it is common for an irrigators' association
collectively to manage water use at the scheme level. But when it comes to watersheds or
other vulnerable resource units, it is usually impossible to identify an appropriate "platform"
for decision making (Rling, 1994a, 1994b).
A key example is the Indonesian programme for integrated pest management (IPM) in
irrigated rice (FAO, 1994; Van de Fliert, 1993; Rling & Van de Fliert, 1994; Kenmore,
1991). At the farm level, this programme involves farmer field schools teaching individual
farmers to manage their rice plots as ecosystems, carefully maintaining the balance between
pests and their natural predators and only reverting to pesticides when observation shows that
the situation is running out of hand. But IPM also needs collective management of resources

14

comprising several farms. Thus nematodes can effectively be controlled by interrupting the
cultivation of wet rice by a dryland crop such as soybeans. This requires decision making at
the irrigation block level. The population dynamics of rats, the most important pest in
irrigated rice, cannot be controlled at the farm level. Integrated rat management requires
collective action at the village level (Van de Fliert, van Elsen, & Nangsir Soenanto, 1993).

Resource-conserving technology development and transfer

Although many resource-conserving technologies and practices have been widely proven on
research stations to be both productive and sustainable, the total number of farmers using
them is still small. This is because these technologies involve the substitution of management
skills, knowledge, and labour for external inputs. The modern approach to agricultural
research and extension, however, has been to emphasize comprehensive packages of
technologies. Few farmers are able to adopt the whole modem packages of production or
conservation technologies without considerable adjustments. Part of the problem is that most
agricultural research still occurs on the research station, where scientists experience
conditions quite different from those experienced by farmers.
This is true of many sustainability-enhancing innovations. Even though resource-conserving
technologies are productive and sustainable, if they are imposed on farmers, then they will
not be adopted widely. Alley cropping, an agroforestry system comprising rows of nitrogenfixing trees or bushes separated by rows of cereals, has long been the focus of research
(Kang, Wilson, & Lawson, 1984; Attah-Krah & Francis, 1987; Young, 1989; Lal, 1989).
Many productive and sustainable systems, needing few or no external inputs, have been
developed. They stop erosion, produce food and wood, and can be cropped over long periods.
But the problem is that very few, if any, farmers have adopted these alley cropping systems as
designed. Despite millions of dollars of research expenditure over many years, systems that
have been produced are suitable only for research stations.
Where these systems have had some success, however, farmers have taken one or two
components of alley cropping and adapted them to their own farms. In Kenya, for example,
farmers planted rows of leguminous trees next to field boundaries, or single rows through
their fields; and in Rwanda, alleys planted by extension workers soon became dispersed
through fields (Kerkhof, 1990). But the prevailing view tends to be that farmers should adapt
to the technology. Of the Agroforestry Outreach Project in Haiti, it was said:
Farmer management of hedgerows does not conform to the extension program.... Some
farmers prune the hedgerows too early, others too late. Some hedges are not yet pruned by
two years of age, when they have already reached heights of 4-5 metres. Other hedges are
pruned too early, mainly because animals are let in or the tops are cut and carried to
animals.... Finally, it is very common for farmers to allow some of the trees in the hedgerow
to grow to pole size. These trees are not pruned but are harvested when needed for house
construction or other activities requiring poles. (Bannister & Nair, 1990)
Farmers were clearly making their own adaptations according to their own needs.

15

Just occasionally, however, an environmentally beneficial technology is developed that

appears to require no knowledge of farmers' conditions. The IPM programme to control
cassava mealybug (CMB) (Phenacoccus manihoti) in west and central Africa is one example.
CMB was first recorded in Africa in 1973, and an effective natural enemy, the wasp
Epidinocarsis lopezi, was found in 1981. Since releases began, it has become established in
twenty-five countries, providing good control of CMB. It is to some extent a "perfect
technology" for scientists, because it is released from the air without the knowledge of
farmers. It is, however, not necessarily a perfect technology for farmers. The contrast with
another IPM programme in Togo is significant when it comes to issues of sustainability (Box
1).

Incorporating farmer experimentation

The problem with agricultural science and extension is that it has poorly understood the
nature of "indigenous" and rural people's knowledge. For many, what rural people know is
assumed to be "primitive," "unscientific," or overtaken by development, and so formal
research and extension must "transform" what they know so as to "develop" them. An
alternative view is that local knowledge is a valuable and underused resource, which can be
studied, collected, and incorporated into development activities. Neither of these views,
though, is entirely satisfactory because of the static view of knowledge implied (Chambers,
Pacey, & Thrupp, 1989; Rling & Engel, 1989; Warren, 1991; Long & Long, 1992; Scoones
& Thompson, 1994). It is more important to recognize that local people are always involved
in active learning, in (re)inventing technologies, in adapting their farming systems and
livelihood strategies. Understanding and supporting these processes of agricultural innovation
and experimentation have become an important focus in facilitating more sustainable
agriculture with its strong locality-specific nature.
The problem with modem agricultural science is that technologies are finalized before
farmers get to see them. If new technologies are appropriate and fit a particular farmer's
conditions or needs, then they stand a good chance of being adopted. But if they do not fit
and if farmers are unable to make changes, then they have only the one choice. They have to
adapt to the technology, or reject it entirely.

Box 1. Comparison of Farmers' Involvement in Two IPM Programmes.

A: Cassava mealybug (CMB) control with Epidinocarsis lopezi
The programme has involved close collaboration between IITA and NARSs, involving
training of local technicians to participate in releases. Now mass rearing of the wasp E.
lopezi is done in Benin; from there they are transported by air for air release. According to
IITA, an important component of success has been that farmers and extension agents have
not had to be involved. Farmers do not, therefore, know anything about the releases. One
survey of farmers in Ghana and Cote d'Ivoire found that they recognized CMB and how it
was a devastating pest. All those where E. lopezi had been introduced at least six months
before had observed a significant decline in CMB. But because none of them knew about the
programme, they attributed the decline to recent heavy rains and other climatic factors.

16

B: Mango mealybug control in Togo

The CMB programme is in contrast to the successful introduction of the parasitoid
Gyranusoides tebyii to Togo in 1987 to control the mango mealybug (Rastrococcus
invadens). The parasitoid was found in India, and following testing, rearing, and release, it
rapidly spread over the whole of Togo. By 1989, no mango trees could be found on which
mango mealybug was present without being parasitized. But success would be threatened
without public interest, as any use of chemical control methods would kill the parasites. A
great deal of publicity was given through radio, TV, and advisory leaflets. Considerable
economic losses are now being prevented by the biological control system.
Source: Kiss and Meerman (1991).

The alternative is to seek and encourage the involvement of farmers in adapting technologies
to their conditions. This constitutes a radical reversal of the normal modes of research and
technology generation, because it requires interactive participation between professionals and
farmers. Participatory technology development (PTD) is the process in which the knowledge
and research capacities of farmers are joined with those of scientific institutions, whilst at the
same time strengthening local capacities to experiment and innovate (Jiggins & De Zeeuw,
1992; Reijntjes, Haverkort, & Waters-Bayer, 1992; Haverkort, van der Kamp, & WatersBayer, 1991). Farmers are encouraged to generate and evaluate indigenous technologies and
to choose and adapt external ones on the basis of their own knowledge and value systems.
But, of course, researchers and farmers participate in different ways, depending on the degree
of control each actor has over the research process. The most common form of "participatory"
research is researcher designed and implemented, even though it might be conducted on
farmers' fields. Many on-farm trials and demonstration plots represent nothing better than
passive participation (Pretty, 1994b). Less commonly, farmers may implement trials designed
by researchers. But greater roles for farmers are even rarer. Fujisaka (1991) describes
researcher-designed experiments on new cropping patterns in the Philippines. Even though
farmers "participated" in implementing the trials, there was widespread uncertainty about
what researchers were actually trying to achieve. Farmers misunderstood experiments and
rejected the new technologies. The reason, as Fujisaka explains, was that "cooperation
between farmers and researchers implies two groups continually listening carefully to one
another. Claveria farmers are avid listeners to... researchers. The challenge is for all on-farm
researchers to complete the circle."
Although this means that technology development must involve farmers, it does not mean
that scientific research has no place. Research will have to contribute on many fronts, such as
in the development of resistant cultivars, knowledge about the life cycles of pests, biological
control methods, suitable crops for erosion control, and processes in nitrogen fixation. Such
research also gives insight into complex processes such as the movement of nutrients in the
soil and their accessibility for plants. But all these contributions must be seen as providing
choices for farmers as they make farm-specific decisions and move the whole farm towards
greater sustainability.

17

From teaching to learning and a whole new

professionalism
The central principle of sustainable agriculture is that it must enshrine new ways of learning
about the world. But learning should not be confused with teaching.
Teaching implies the transfer of knowledge from someone who knows to someone who does
not know. Teaching is the normal mode of educational curricula and is also central to many
organizational structures (Ison, 1990; Argyris, Putnam, & Smith, 1985; Russell & Ison, 1991;
Bawden, 1992, 1994; Pretty & Chambers, 1993). Universities and other professional
institutions reinforce the teaching paradigm by giving the impression that they are custodians
of knowledge which can be dispensed or given (usually by lecture) to a recipient (a student).
Where these institutions do not include a focus on self-development and on enhancing the
ability to learn, they do not allow students to grasp an essential skill in the sustainable
management of a complex agroecosystem. In that case, "teaching threatens sustainable
agriculture" (Ison, 1990).
The problem for farmers is that they cannot rely on routine, calendar-based activities if they
engage in sustainable farming. Their interventions must be based on observation and
anticipation. They require instruments and indicators which make more visible the ecological
relationships on and among farms. Technology for sustainable farming must emphasize
measurement and observation equipment or services that help individual farmers assess their
situations, such as soil analysis, manure analysis, and pest identification (Rling, 1993). It
also has to focus on higher system levels. Predators and parasitoids to control pests often
require a larger biotope than that of a small farm. Erosion control, water harvesting,
biodiversity, access to biomass, recycling waste between town and countryside and between
animal and crop production, all require local cooperation and coordination.
What becomes important is the social transition, or new learning path, that farmers and
communities must take to support sustainable agriculture. This is much less obvious and
often remains unrecognized by extensionists. Learning for sustainable agriculture involves a
transformation in the fundamental objectives, strategies, theories, risk perceptions, skills,
labour organization, and professionalism of farming. This learning path has four key
elements:
1. The information system. Sustainable agriculture must be responsive to changing
circumstances, so farmers need to invest in observation, observation equipment, record
keeping, and monitoring procedures.
2. Conceptual framework. Sustainable agriculture is knowledge intensive, and so farmers
must know about life cycles of pests and disease organisms and their recognition, biological
controls, ecological principles, soil life processes, nutrient cycles.
3. Skills. Sustainable farming requires a whole set of new skills, including observation and
monitoring, compost making, mechanical weed control, spot application of pesticides, and
risk assessment.

18

4. Higher system-level management. Generally, sustainable management of the farm is not

enough, and it is necessary to think at system levels higher than the farm and take part in the
collective management of natural resources at those levels.
In educational systems, therefore, the fundamental requirement for sustainable agriculture is
for universities to evolve into communities of participatory learners. Such changes are very
rare, an exception being Hawkesbury College, which is now part of the University of Western
Sydney, Australia (Bawden, 1992, 1994). However, a regional consortium of NGOs in Latin
America concerned with agroecology and low-input agriculture recently signed an agreement
with eleven colleges of agriculture from Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Mexico, Peru, and
Uruguay to help in the joint reorientation of curriculum and research agendas towards
sustainability and poverty concerns (Altieri & Yuryevic, 1992; Yuryevic, 1994). The
agreement defines collaboration to develop more systemic and integrated curricula,
professional training and internship programmes, collaborative research efforts, and the
development of training materials.

.Summary And Conclusion

Box 2. The Key Principles of Farmer Field Schools.
1. What is relevant and meaningful is decided by the learner and must be discovered by the
learner. Learning flourishes in a situation where teaching is seen as a facilitating process that
assists people to explore and discover the personal meaning of events for themselves.
2. Learning is a consequence of experience. People become responsible when they have
assumed responsibility and experienced success.
3. Cooperative approaches are enabling. As people invest in collaborative group approaches,
they develop a better sense of their own worth.
4. Learning is an evolutionary process, and is characterized by free and open
communication, confrontation, acceptance, respect, and the right to make mistakes.
5. Each person's experience of reality is unique. As people become more aware of how they
learn and solve problems, they can refine and modify their own styles of learning and action.
Sources: Adapted from Kingsley and Musante, 1994; Van de Fliert, 1993; Kenmore, 1991;
Stock, 1994.

A move from a teaching to a learning style has profound implications for agricultural
development institutions. The focus is less on what we learn, and more on how we learn and
with whom (see Box 2 for principles of farmer field schools used in the FAO IPM programme
in Southeast Asia). This implies new roles for development professionals, leading to a whole
new professionalism with new concepts, values, methods, and behaviour. Typically, normal
professionals are single-disciplinary, work largely or only in agencies remote from people,
are insensitive to diversity of context, and are concerned with themselves generating and

19

transferring technologies. Their beliefs about people's conditions and priorities often differ
from people's own views. The new professionals, by contrast, are either multidisciplinary or
work in close connection with other disciplines, are not intimidated by the complexities of
close dialogue with rural and urban people, and are continually aware of the context of
interaction and development.

From directive to participatory extension

Extension has long been grounded in the diffusion model of agricultural development, in
which technologies are passed from research scientists via extensionists to farmers (Rogers,
1962, 1983). This approach is exemplified by the training and visit (T&V) system. It was first
implemented in Turkey in 1967 and later widely adopted by governments (Benor, 1987;
Roberts, 1989). It was designed to be a management system for energizing extension staff,
turning desk-bound, poorly motivated field staff into effective extension agents. Extension
agents receive regular training to enhance their technical skills, which they then hope will
pass to all farmers through regular communication with small numbers of selected contact
farmers.
But the contact farmers are usually selected on the basis of literacy, wealth, readiness to
change, and "progressiveness," and so this sets them apart from the rest of the community.
The secondary transfer of the technical messages, from contact farmers to community, has
been much less successful than predicted, and adoption rates are commonly very low among
noncontact farmers. Without a doubt, T&V is now widely considered as ineffective (Axinn,
1988; Howell, 1988; Moris, 1990; Antholt, 1992, 1994; Hussain, Byerlee, & Heisey, 1994).
Important lessons have been learned from the problems associated with T&V, and there is
clearly a need to address the systemic issues facing extension (Zijp, 1993; Antholt, 1994).
Extension will need to build on traditional communication systems and involve farmers
themselves in the process of extension. Incentive systems will have to be developed to reward
staff for being in the field and working closely with farmers. There must be a "well-defined
link between the well-being of field officers and the extension system, based on the clients'
view of the value of extension's and field workers' performance" (Antholt, 1992, P.).
Participation, if it is to become part of extension, must clearly be interactive and empowering.
Any pretence to participation will result in little change. Allowing farmers just to come to
meetings or letting a few representatives sit on committees will be insufficient.
There have been some recent innovations in introducing elements of farmer participation and
group approaches into extension. Differences in impact between individual and group
approaches have been well documented in both Nepal and Kenya. In western Nepal, Sen
(1993) compared the rate of adoption of new technologies when extension worked with
individuals or with groups. With groups, better communication between farmers and
extensionists led to more adoption. When the individual approach was resumed after the
experiment, adoption rates fell rapidly in succeeding years.
In Kenya, the Ministry of Agriculture is increasingly adopting a community-oriented
approach to soil and water conservation. This is steadily replacing the former individual
approach of the T&V system. Where extension staff interact closely with communities in
developing joint action plans, and local people freely elect members to a local catchment
committee, then the impact on agricultural growth is immediate and sustained. Strong local

20

groups mobilize the interest of the wider community and sustain action well beyond the
period of direct contact with external agents. Recent studies comparing the impact of the
catchment approach with the individual T&V approach have shown that, for a wide range of
indicators, farmers' livelihoods were more improved where the community approach was
implemented (SWCB, 1994; Pretty, Thompson, & Kiara, 1994; MALDM, 1988-1994;
Eckbom, 1992).
There have been similar successes in IPM, which requires a level of analytical skill and
certain basic training in crop monitoring and ecological principles. Where farmers have been
trained as experts, such as in Honduras (Bentley, Rodriguez, & Gonzalez, 1993) and in the
rice-IPM programmes of Southeast Asia (Kenmore, 1991), then the impacts are substantial.
Ordinary farmers are capable of rapidly acquiring and applying the principles and
approaches. Fewer programmes are now teaching farmers new technologies and knowledge;
rather, they are concerned with developing farmers' own capacity to think for themselves and
develop their own solutions. These are producing substantial reductions in insecticide use,
whilst maintaining yields and increasing profits (Table 1). But where extension continues to
use the conventional top-down approach, then few farmers adopt, let alone learn, the
principles. As Matteson (1992) put it: "[F]ew IPM programmes have made a lasting impact
on farmer knowledge, attitudes or practice."
There are three major lessons for extension. First, it is important to make new things visible.
An important role of extension is to make visible the state of the environment and the extent
to which present farming practices are untenable. In addition, extension can demonstrate the
feasibility of sustainable practices. Even more important is to give farmers the tools for
observation and to train them to monitor the situation on their own farms.
The second lesson is the use of farmers' knowledge. The location-specific nature of
sustainable agriculture implies that extension must make use of farmers' knowledge and work
together with farmers. Often, indigenous practices which have been ignored under the impact
of chemical farming can be fruitfully revived. Indigenous technology development practices
and farmer experimentation can be an important "entry point" for introducing sustainable
farming practices (Brouwers & Rling, in press).
The third lesson is an emphasis on facilitating learning. Instead of "transferring" technology,
extension workers must help farming "walk the learning path" (Box 3). Extension workers
should seek to understand the learning process, provide expert advice where required,
convene and create learning groups, and help farmers overcome major hurdles in adapting
their farms.

Challenges for supportive policy processes

Policy making is commonly considered the prerogative of some central authority that
formulates a policy, which is then decreed, imposed, and implemented regardless of
conflicting knowledge and concerns. But policy is, in practice, often the net result of the
actions of different interest groups pulling in complementary and opposing directions. This is
particularly true with environmental problems because they are marked by uncertainty,
complexity, and high stakes complexity, and high stakes (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993). There
is therefore a growing tendency to see policy as a negotiated agreement resulting from
interaction among citizens, in which central authorities play a facilitating role (Van der Poel

21

& Van Woerkum, 1994). Policy is only effective if it is based on a widely shared consensus.
From this perspective, it is easy to see why so many environmental policies which rely on
coercion, control, and transfer have failed (Pretty & Shah, 1994; Pimbert & Pretty, 1994).

Box 3. The First Steps on the Learning Path in the Netherlands.

Predator mites were introduced into Dutch fruit orchards to control the red spider mite,
which had become resistant to chemical controls. The use of this biological control meant
that growers had to learn how to manage their orchards as biotopes for the predator mite.
Soon they were carrying magnifying glasses to study the progress of their little helpers. This
made them much more observant and accustomed to investing in regular observation.
Furthermore, the health of the predator mites precluded use of broad-spectrum pesticides
against other pests. As a result, growers also had to learn alternative controls for those pests.

Table 1. Impact of IPM Programmes Involving New Participatory Approaches to

Farmer Learning on Pesticide Use and Crop Yields

Country and crop Average changes in pesticide use (as

% of conventional treatments)

Changes in yields (as % of

conventional treatments)

Togo, cotton1

50%

90-108%

Burkina Faso, rice1

50%

103%

Thailand, rice2

50%

no data

Philippines, rice2

62%

110%

34-42%

105%

25%

93%'1

no. of applications up volume applied

down

110-130%

Indonesia, rice2

Nicaragua, maize3

USA, nine
commodities4

22

Bangladesh, rice5

0-25%

113-124%

India, groundnuts6

0%

100%

46-80%

110%

Vietnam, rice2

57%

107%

India,rice2

33%

108%

Sri Lanka, rice2

26%

135%

China, rice2

Even though yields are lower, net returns are much higher.

Sources: (1) Kiss and Meerman, 1991; (2) Kenmore, 1991: Winarto, 1993; van der Fliert,
1993; Matteson et at, 1992; FAO, 1994; (3) Hruska, 1993; (4) NRC, 1989; (5) Kamp et al,
1993; Kenmore, 1991; (6) ICRISAT, 1993
For sustainable agriculture to succeed, policy formulation must arise in a new way. Policy
processes must be enabling and participatory, creating the conditions for sustainable
development based more on locally available resources and on local skills and knowledge.
Effective policy processes will have to bring together a range of actors and institutions for
creative interaction and address multiple realities and unpredictability. What is required is the
development of approaches that put participation, negotiation, and mediation at the centre of
policy formulation so as to create a much wider common ownership in the practices. This is a
central challenge for sustainable agriculture. The management of higher level systems,
whether common grazing lands, coastal fisheries resources, communal forests, national parks,
polders, or watersheds, requires social organization comprising the key stakeholders. All
successful moves to more sustainable agriculture have in common coordinated action by
groups or communities at the local level (Pretty, 1995). But the problem is that platforms for
resource use negotiation generally do not exist, and so need to be created and facilitated
(Brinkman, 1994; Rling, 1994a, 1994b).
Different methodologies are emerging to help stake-holders achieve collective resource
management capacity. Well known are participatory rapid appraisal (PRA) and related
methodologies (see chapter 6). In addition, the soft system methodology (SSM) developed for
corporate environments is highly promising for resource use negotiation (Checkland, 1981;
Checkland & Scholes, 1990). For stakeholders who have come to appreciate the fact that they
share a problem, SSM takes them through a number of steps which allows them to create a
"rich picture" on the basis of their multiple perspectives, reach some accommodation with
respect to major causes of the problem, and hence decide on collective action. "Rapid
appraisal of agricultural knowledge systems" (RAAKS) (Engel, 1995) is a related

23

methodology for facilitating innovation as an emergent property of a knowledge network,

comprising such actors as farmers, extension workers, researchers, NGO workers, and policy
makers. This system provides stakeholders with different "windows" (such as mission, task
differentiation, integration, articulation, coordination, performance) on their own collective
practices which allow them to capture the potential synergy of their contributions to
innovative performance.
A fundamental requirement if such approaches are to work is that stakeholders in a particular
natural resource learn to appreciate that they have a common problem (Box 4). Extension has
an important role to play here by making visible the interdependence between stakeholders
and the extent to which the resource unit on which they depend has been destroyed by their
uncoordinated action and the collective impact of their individual activities. It is within policy
contexts thus made conducive for sustainable agriculture that technology development and
extension can be especially effective.

Box 4. Resource Mapping by Farmers in Landcare Programme, Australia.

Landcare in Australia provides examples of learning to care for natural resources at higher
system levels. Consider resource mapping. Farmers from a subcatchment (usually a
subgroup of a Lancare group) are convened by the facilitator of the group to discuss the soils
and their susceptibility to erosion. First, a soil typology is established by the farmers through
field visits, digging soil pits, and so forth. After a suitable classification (which might deviate
considerably from the official scientific one) has been agreed upon, farmers receive an air
photo mosaic of the entire subcatchment with their property drawn in. They are also
provided with a transparent overlay on which to map the soils and main features of their own
properties.
These farmer maps are digitized and fed into GIS software, which allows the property
resource maps to be combined into one consolidated subcatchment map. Following meetings
to discuss the results, farmers agree on the resource map of the subcatchment and now have a
firm grasp of the interaction between their property and the subcatchment. They also realize
that vulnerable soils span several properties and that measures to prevent further soil erosion
and solination require alignment of fences, roads, vegetation belts, and other features.

References
Altieri, M. A., & Yurjevic, A. (1992). Changing the agenda of the universities. ILEIA
Newsletter, 2, 39.
Antholt, C. H. (1992). Relevancy, responsiveness and cost-effectiveness: Issues/or
agricultural extension in the 21st century. Washington, DC: Asia Region, Technical
Department, World Bank.
Antholt, C. H. (1994). Getting ready for the twenty-first century: Technical change and
institutional modernisation in agriculture. World Bank Technical Paper 217. Asia Technical
Department Series. Washington, DC: World Bank.

24

Argyris, C., Putoam, R., & Smith, D. M. (1985). Action science. San Francisco and London:
Jossey-Bass.
Attah-Krah, A. N., & Francis, P. A. (1987). The role of on-farm trials in the evaluation of
composite technologies: The case of alley farming in southern Nigeria. Agricultural Systems,
23, 133-152.
Axinn, G. H. (1988). T & V (tragic and vain) extension. INTERPAKS, INTERCHANGE,
International Agriculture, 5 (3). Urbana: College of Agriculture, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.
Bagadion, B. U., & Korten, F. F. (1991). Developing irrigators' organizations: A learning
process approach. In M. M. Cernea (Ed.), Putting people first (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bannister, M. E., & Nair, P. K. R. (1990). Alley cropping as a sustainable agricultural
technology for the hillsides of Haiti: Experience of an agroforestry outreach project.
American Alternative Agriculture, 5 (2), 51-59.
Bawden, R. (1992, October). Creating learning systems: A metaphor for institutional reform
for development. Paper presented at the joint conference of IIED/IDS. IDS, University of
Sussex: IIED, London.
Bawden, R. (1994). A learning approach to sustainable agriculture and rural development:
Reflections from Hawkesbury (mimeo). Australia: Hawkesbury College.
Benor, D. (1987). Training and visit extension: Back to basics. In Rivera and Schram,
Agricultural Extension Worldwide (p. 137-149). New York: Croom Helm.
Bentley, I. W., Rodriguez, G., & Gonzalez, A. (1993). Science and the people: Honduran
compressions and natural pest control inventions. In D. Buckles (Ed.), Gorras y sombreros:
Caminos hacia la colaboracin entre tcnicos y campesinos. El Zamarano, Honduras:
Department of Crop Protection.
Brinkman, R. (1994). Recent developments in land use planning. Keynote address at the 75year Anniversary Conference of the Wageningen Agricultural University. In L. 0. Fresco et al.
(Eds.), Future of the land: Mobilising and integrating knowledge for land use options.
Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
Brouwers, J., & Rling, N. (in press). Living local knowledge for sustainable development.
Accepted for publication in D. M. Warren, S. Fujisaka, & G. Prain (Eds.), Biological and
cultural diversity: The role of indigenous experimentation in development. London:
Intermediate Technology Publications.
Bunch, R. (1991). Low input soil restoration in Honduras: The Cantarranas farmer-tofarmer extension programme. Sustainable Agriculture Programme Gatekeeper Series SA23.
London: IIED.
Campbell, A. (1994). Landcare: Communities shaping the land and the future. Sydney: Alien
and Unwin.

25

Chambers, R., Pacey, A., & Thrupp, L-A. (Eds.). (1989). Farmer first: Farmer innovation
and agricultural research. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Checkland, P. B. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester: John Wiley.
Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1990). Soft systems methodology in action. Chichester: John
Wiley and Sons.
Dobbs, T. L., Becker, D. L., & Taylor. (1991). Sustainable agriculture policy analyses: South
Dakota on-farm case studies. Journal of Farming Systems Research-Extension, 2(2), 109124.
Eckbom, A. (1992). Economic impact assessment of implementation strategies for soil
conservation: A comparative analysis of the on-farm and catchment approach in Trans Nwia,
Kenya. Sweden: Unit for Environmental Economics, Department of Economics, Gothenburg
University.
El Titi, A., & Landes, H. (1990). Integrated farming system of Lautenbach: A practical
contribution toward sustainable agriculture. In C. A. Edwards, R. Lal, P. Madden, R. H.
Miller, & G. House (Eds.), Sustainable agricultural systems. Ankeny: Soil and Water
Conservation Society.
Engel, P. (1995). Facilitating innovation: An action-oriented approach and participatory
methodology to improve innovative social practice in agriculture. Published doctoral
dissertation. Agricultural University, Wageningen.
Faeth, P. (Ed.). (1993). Agricultural policy and sustainability: Case studies from India, Chile,
the Philippines and the United States. Washington, DC: WRI.
Fresco, L. O., Stroosnijder, L., Bouma, J., & van Keulen, H. (Eds.). (1994). The future of the
land. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
Fujisaka, S. (1991). Thirteen reasons why farmers do not adopt innovations intended to
improve the sustainability of agriculture. In Evaluation for sustainable land management in
the developing world: Volume 2. Technical Papers. IBSRAM Proceedings, 72(2), 509-522.
Thailand: IBSRAM.
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7,
September), 739-755.
GTZ (1992). The spark has jumped the gap. Eschborn: Deutsche Gessellschaft fr
Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ).
Hanson, J. C., Johnson, D. M., Peters, S. E., & Janke, R. R. (1990). The profitability of
sustainable agriculture on a representative grain farm in the mid-Atlantic region, 1981-1989.
Northeastern Journal of Agriculture and Resource Economics, 19 (2), 90-98.
Haverkort, B., van der Kamp, & Waters-Bayer, A. (Eds.). (1991). Joining farmers'
experiments: Experiences in participatory development. London: IT Publications.

26

Howell, J. (Ed.). (1988). Training and visit extension in practice. London: Overseas
Development Institute.
Hruska, A. J. (1993). Care policy promotes IPM. International Ag-Sieve, 5(6), 4-5.
Hussain, S. S., Byerlee, D., & Heisey, P. W. (1994). Impacts of the training and visit
extension system on farmers' knowledge and adoption of technology: Evidence from
Pakistan. Agricultural Economics, 10, 39-47.
ICRISAT. (1993). Will the pod-borer become the farmer's pall bearer? SAT News, p. 7-10.
Ison, R. (1990). Teaching threatens sustainable agriculture. Gatekeeper Series SA21.
London: IIED.
Jiggins, J., & de Zeeuw, H. (1992). Participatory technology development in practice: Process
and methods. In C. Reijntjes, B. Haverkort, & A. Waters-Bayer (Eds.), Farming for the
Future. Netherlands: Macmillan and ILEIA.
Jordan, V. W. L., Hutcheon, J. A., & Glen, D. M. (1993). Studies in technology transfer of
integrated farming systems: Considerations and principles for development. Bristol: AFRC
Institute of Arable Crops Research, Long Ashton Research Station.
Kamp, K., Gregory, R., & Chowhan, G. (1993). Fish cutting pesticide use. ILEIA Newsletter,
2, 22-23.
Kang, B. T., Wilson, G. F., & Lawson, T. L. (1984). Alley cropping: A stable alternative to
shifting agriculture. Ibadan: IITA.
Kenmore, P. (1991). How rice farmers clean up the environment, conserve biodiversity, raise
more food, make higher profits: Indonesia's IPM - A model for Asia. Manila, Philippines:
FAO.
Kerkhof, P. (1990). Agroforestry in Africa: A survey of project experience. London: Panos
Institute.
Kingsley, M. A., & Musante, P. (1994, July). Activities for developing linkages and
cooperative exchange among farmers' organisations, NGOs, GOs and researchers: Case
study of IPM in Indonesia. Paper presented at IIED symposium, Brighton.
Kiss, A., & Meerman, F. (1991). Integrated pest management in African agriculture. World
Bank Technical Paper 142. African Technical Department Series. Washington, DC: World
Bank.
Krishna, A. (1993). Watershed development in Rajasthan: The new approach. Jaipur:
Watershed Development, Government of Rajasthan.
Lal, R. (1989). Agroforestry systems and soil surface management of a tropical alfisol. I: Soil
moisture and crop yields. Agroforestry Systems, 8, 7-29.

27

Liebhardt, W, Andrews, R. W, Culik, M. N., Harwood, R. R., Janke, R. R., Radke, J. K., &
Rieger-Schwartz, S. L. (1989). Crop production during conversion from conventional to lowinput methods. Agronomy Journal, 81 (2), 150-159.
Lobo, C., & Kochendorfer-Lucius, G. (1992). The rain decided to help us: An experience in
participatory watershed development in Maharashtra State, India. Ahmednagar: Social
Centre.
Long, N., & Long, A. (Eds.). (1992). Battlefields of knowledge: The interlocking of theory
and practice in social research and development. London: Routledge.
MALDM (1988-1994). Reports of catchment approach planning and rapid catchment
analyses. Nairobi: Soil and Water Conservation Branch, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock
Development and Marketing.
Moris, J. (1990). Extension alternatives in Africa. London: ODI.
Matteson, P. C. (1992). "Farmer First" for establishing IPM. Bulletin of Entomological
Research, 82, 293-296.
Matteson, P. C., Gallagher, K. D., & Kenmore, P. E. (1992). Extension of integrated pest
management for planthoppers in Asian irrigated rice: Empowering the user. In R. F. Denno &
T. J. Perfect (Eds.), Ecology and Management of Planthoppers. London: Chapman and Hall.
NRC (1989). Alternative agriculture. Washington, DC: National Research Council; National
Academy Press.
Ornes, F. (1988). Community training centres for organic agriculture and appropriate
technology. Dominion Republic. In C. Conroy & M. Litvinoff (Eds.), The greening of aid.
London: Earthscan Publications.
Pimbert, M., & Pretty, J. N. (1994). Parks, people, and professionals: Putting "participation"
into protected areas management. Geneva: UNRISD and WWF; London: IIED.
Pretty, J. N. (1994a). Policies that work for a more sustainable agriculture. London: IIED.
Pretty, J. N. (1994b). Alternative systems of inquiry for sustainable agriculture. IDS Bulletin,
25(2), 37-48. University of Sussex: IDS.
Pretty, J. N. (1995). Regenerating agriculture: Policies and practice for sustainability and
self-reliance. London: Earthscan Publications.
Pretty, J. N., & Chambers, R. (1993). Towards a learning paradigm: New professionalism
and institutions for sustainable agriculture. IDS Discussion Paper DP 334. Brighton: IDS.
Pretty, J. N., & Howes, R. (1993). Sustainable agriculture in Britain: Recent achievements
and new policy challenges. London: IIED.

28

Pretty, J. N., & Shah, P. (1994). Soil and water conservation in the 20th century: A history of
coercion and control. Rural History Centre Research Series No. 1. Reading: University of
Reading.
Pretty, J. N., Thompson, J., & Kiara, J. K. (1994). Agricultural regeneration in Kenya: The
catchment approach to soil and water conservation. Ambio.
Reijntjes, C., Haverkort, B., & Waters-Bayer, A. (1992). Farming for the future: An
introduction to low-external-input and sustainable agriculture. The Information Centre for
Low-External-Input and Sustainable Agriculture (ILEIA). London: Macmillan.
Roberts, N. (Ed.). (1989). Agricultural extension in Africa. World Bank Symposium.
Washington, DC: World Bank.
Roche, C. (1992). Operationality in turbulence: The need for change. London: ACORD.
Rogers, E. M. (1962 and 1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
Rling, N. (1992, October). Facilitating sustainable agriculture: Turning policy models
upside down. Paper presented at IIED/IDS Conference, Brighton.
Rling, N. (1993). Agricultural knowledge and environmental regulation: The crop protection
plan and the Koekoekspolder. Sociologia Ruralis, 33 (2), 212-231.
Rling, N. (1994a). Platforms for decision making about ecosystems. In L. Fresco (Ed.), The
future of the land. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
Rling, N. (1994b). Creating human platforms to manage natural resources: First results of a
research programme. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Systems Oriented
Research in Agriculture and Rural Development (p. 391-395). Montpellier, France,
November21.25.1994.
Rling, N., & Engel, P. (1989). IKS and knowledge management: Utilizing indigenous
knowledge in institutional knowledge systems. In D. Warren et al. (Eds.), Indigenous
knowledge systems: Implications for agriculture and international development. Studies in
Technology and Social Change, 11. Ames: Technology and Social Change Program, Iowa
State University.
Rling, N., & Jiggins, J. (1993). Policy paradigm for sustainable farming. European Journal
of Agricultural Education and Extension, 7(1), 23-44.
Rling, N., & Van de Fliert, E. (1994). Transforming extension for sustainable agriculture:
The case of integrated pest management in rice in Indonesia. Agriculture and Human Values,
11 (2, 3), 96-108.
Russell, D. B., & Ison, R. L. (1991, April). The research-development relationship in
rangelands: An opportunity for contextual science. Plenary paper presented at the 4th
International Rangelands Congress, Montpellier, France.
Scoones, I., & Thompson, J. (Eds.). (1994). Beyond Farmer First. London: IT Publications.

29

Sen, C. K. (1993). Nepal: Group extension. Rural Extension Bulletin, 3, 17-23. University of
Reading, UK.
Shah, P. (1994). Participatory watershed management in India: The experience of the Aga
Khan Rural Support Programme. In I. Scoones & J. Thompson (Eds.), Beyond Farmer First.
London: IT Publications.
Sriskandarajah, N., Bawden, R. J., & Packham, R. G. (1991). Systems agriculture: A
paradigm for sustainability. Association for Farming Systems Research-Extension Newsletter,
2(2), 1-5.
Stock, T. (1994). The impact of integrated pest management farmer field schools in the
Cordillera region of the Philippines. Unpublished master's thesis. University of Reading.
SWCB (1994). The impact of the catchment approach to soil and water conservation: A study
of six catchments in Western, Rift Valley and Central provinces of Kenya. Nairobi: Ministry
of Agriculture, Livestock Development and Marketing.
UNDP (1992). The benefits of diversity: An incentive towards sustainable agriculture. New
York: UNDP.
Van de Fliert, E. (1993). Integrated pest management: Farmer field schools generate
sustainable practices: A case study in central Java evaluating IPM training. WU Papers 933. Published doctoral dissertation. Wageningen: Agricultural University.
Van de Fliert, E., van Elsen, K., & Nangsir Soenanto, F. (1993). Integrated rat management: A
community activity. Results of a pilot programme in Indonesia. FAO Plant Protection
Bulletin, 41 (3).
Van der Poel, M. M., & Van Woerkum, C. J. M. (1994). De positionering van communicatie
in Beleid. Deelrapport 1 (literatuuronderzoek) en Deel 2 (Weergave van bijeenkomsten,
conclusies van het onderzoek en aan-bevelingen voor vervolgonderzoek). Wageningen:
Agricultural University, Department of Communication and Innovation Studies, carried under
a contract from the Government Information Office.
van der Werf, E., & de Jager, A. (1992). Ecological agriculture in South India: An agroeconomic comparison and study of transition. Den Haag: LEI and ETC Foundation, Leusden.
Van Weeperen, W., Rling, N., Van Bon, K., & Mur, P. (1995). Introductie gehtegreerde
akkerbouw: Het veranderingsproces. Ervaringen van akkerbouwers bij het omschakelen naar
een geintegreerde bedrijfsvoering. Leiystad: Informatie en Kenniscentrum Landbouw,
afdeling AGV.
Vereijken, P. (1992). A methodic way to more sustainable farming systems. Netherlands
Journal of Agricultural Science, 40, 209-223.
Vereijken, P., Wijnands, F., Stol, W., & Visser, R. (1994). Progress reports of research
network on integrated and ecological arable farming systems for EU and associated countries.
Wageningen: DLO Institute for Agrobiology and Soil Fertility.

30

Warren, D. (1991, May). The role of indigenous knowledge in facilitating a participatory

approach to agricultural extension. Paper presented at the International Workshop on
Agricultural Knowledge Systems, Bad Boll, Germany.
Winarto, Y. (1993). Farmers' agro-ecological knowledge construction: The case of integrated
pest management among rice farmers on the north-west coast of West Java. Rural People's
Knowledge, Agricultural Research and Extension Practice, 1 (3), London: IIED.
Young, A. (1989). Agroforestry for soil conservation. Wallingford: CAB International.
Yuryevic, A. (1994, July). Community-based sustainable development in Latin America: The
experience of CLADES. Paper presented at IIED Symposium, Brighton.
Zijp, W. (1993). Being a good communicator doesn't solve all of extension's problems.
Development Communication Report, 80, 20.