IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-1

Research article
erd

Agricultural Extension and Advisory Services in Bosnia
SINISA BERJAN*
University of East Sarajevo, East Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Email: sinisaberjan@yahoo.com

HAMID EL BILALI
Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Bari (CIHEAM-MAIB), Valenzano, Bari, Italy

ALEKSANDRA  DESPOTOVIĆ
Biotechnical Faculty, University of Podgorica, Podgorica, Montenegro

JASMINA  SIMIĆ
Cooperative Union of the Republic of Srpska, Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina

MIRKO KULINA
University of East Sarajevo, East Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

NOUREDDIN DRIOUECH
Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Bari (CIHEAM-MAIB), Valenzano, Bari, Italy
Received 15 December 2012

Accepted 30 January 2013(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) consists of two governing entities; the Federationof Bosnia and Herzegovina (FBiH) and the Republika Srpska (RS). Agriculture employs
almost a fifth of the total labor force. Around 61% of the population lives in rural areas.
Easy and timely access to reliable and updated information provided by extension services
is crucial for agricultural and rural development. The paper aims at analyzing the public
agricultural extension and advisory services (AEAS) in Bosnia. In particular, it analyses
governance; human resources; gender; cooperation projects; decentralization; financing;role in building social capacity as well as advisory approaches, methods and media. Some
recommendations to improve the AEAS performance are made. The paper is based on aliterature review and semi-structured interviews as well as focus group discussions carriedout in March 2011 with agricultural advisors in the RS. Modern AEAS started to exist in
BiH in 2002 and are organized on entity level: the Agency for Providing Services inAgriculture in the RS and cantonal agricultural extension services in the FBiH. The
National Extension Services for BiH project helped establishing cantonal and regional
offices. The Advisory Services Agency has five regional offices. Advisors use many group(e.g. lectures, seminars, field days) and individual (e.g. farm visits, phone calls) extension
methods and media (e.g. internet, leaflets, posters, brochures, mass media). Advisors focus
mainly on crop and animal production, processing and marketing. They also assist
producers to gather in cooperatives. Advisory services face many financial, management
and technical problems. The traditional top-down approach is still widely used. Bosnian
AEAS should be supported by providing them with the necessary means and resources aswell as technical, managerial and soft skills to fully assume their crucial role. That isnecessary to develop a well performing pluralistic, participatory, bottom-up, decentralized,
farmer-led and market-driven advisory system.
Keywords agricultural extension, performance, governance, Bosnia

INTRODUCTION
Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) consists of two governing entities i.e. the Federation of Bosnia andHerzegovina (FBiH) and Republika Srpska (RS); and a self-governing administrative unit i.e.
Ⓒ ISERD

136

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-1

Brčko  District  (BD),  under  the  State  sovereignty.  During  the  post-war period, the rural scenario in
BiH has changed dramatically. Rural economy in BiH is getting more diversified but agriculture
still plays an important socio-economic role. Agriculture share in GDP was 8.1% in 2011 (EC,2012). Agriculture employs a fifth (20.6%) of the total labor force i.e. 167,000 persons (ASBiH,
2012).   Rural   areas   cover   81%   of   the   country’s   territory   and   approximately   61%   of   the   total
population can be classified as rural (Lampietti et al., 2009).
Easy and timely access to reliable and updated information is crucial for agricultural and ruraldevelopment  (ARD).  The  term  “extension”  was  first  used  to  describe  adult  education  programs in
England   starting   in   1867   (Swanson   and   Rajalahti,   2010).   One   can   simply   say   that   “extension isgetting knowledge to farmers so that they will make a positive change”  (USAID,  2012).  Advisory  service is commonly used as an alternate term for extension services. Apart from their conventional
function of providing knowledge and technology to improve agricultural productivity, agriculturaladvisory services are also expected to link farmers to markets, promote sustainable production
techniques, etc. (Swanson and Rajalahti, 2010).
Good extension is recognized as a key to agricultural development (USAID, 2012).
Agricultural extension is the defining metaphor for all technology transfer activities and models.
However, too few farmers have access to the extension services they need and extension workers
themselves cannot easily tap all the information they need to help farmers (USAID, 2012).
According  to  Leeuwis  (2004),  extension  as  a  communication  for  innovation  should  serve  as  a  “twoway”   or   “multiple–way process”,   which   may   have   implications   for   all   involved   parties   (farmers,  researchers, extension agents, policy makers, agricultural industries, etc.). In fact, agricultural andrural extension needs to provide a wider range of services to a more diverse clientele to improvetheir capacity to access, adapt and use knowledge, inputs and services (World Bank, 2008). For
extension to be successful, it needs to include credible content, effective delivery and be relevant toand applicable by clients (USAID, 2012).
In the Western Balkans, current agricultural extension structures have been developed mainly
within the last two decades with the help of international donors. Public extension structures exist
besides other providers such as NGOs and commercial extension agents (FAO, 2011).
OBJECTIVE
The paper aims at analyzing the public agricultural extension and advisory services (AEAS) in
Bosnia and Herzegovina.
METHODOLOGY
The paper is based on a review of secondary data from different sources such as the FAO Regional
Office for Europe and Central Asia; Agency for Statistics of BiH; USAID; the European
Commission (EC); Arcotrass GmbH; the Institute for Statistics of the RS; the International Bankfor Reconstruction and Development (IBRD); the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water
Management of the RS (MAFWM-RS); the World Bank; etc.
Primary data were collected by semi-structured interviews as well as focus group discussions
carried out in March 2011 with agricultural advisors in the RS. The prepared checklist dealt withmany issues regarding the AEAS in BiH and the RS such as (i) governance; (ii) human resources;(iii) gender; (iv) main cooperation projects; (v) decentralization; (vi) financing; (vii) role inbuilding social capacity; and (viii) advisory approaches, methods and media.
Taking into consideration the problems and weaknesses that were identified somerecommendations were made to improve the Bosnian AEAS performance.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Generally speaking, the performance of the agricultural extension system is strongly correlated tothat of the research, development, education (formal, non-formal and informal) and trainingⒸ ISERD

137

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-1(including vocational training) systems. As for existing agricultural training and education
capacities, seven agricultural (cantonal level in the FBiH and regional level in the RS) faculties
provide agricultural studies in BiH (FAO, 2011). The main agricultural research institutes andfaculties in BiH are (Arcotrass et al., 2006): Agricultural Faculty in Sarajevo (FBiH); Agricultural
Faculty in Banja Luka (RS); Veterinary Faculty in Sarajevo (FBiH); Faculty of Technology inBanja Luka (RS); and Agricultural Institutes in Sarajevo, Mostar (FBiH) and Banja Luka (RS).
Agricultural extension and advisory services, as known in practice worldwide (cf. Swanson
and Rajalahti, 2010) started to exist in BiH in 2002. They are organized on entity level: Agency forproviding services in agriculture in the RS, cantonal agricultural extension services in the FBiH andthe Department of Extension Services in Brcko District. Responsibility for extension activities in
the FBiH is in the hands of cantonal ministries in charge of agriculture. In Brcko district, the Officeof Agricultural Extension Services operates within the Department of Agriculture and Forestry.
With the strong support of international donor projects the establishment of advisory services
in BiH started after the civil war. A World Bank project is still active at national level (FAO, 2011).
Within the EU PHARE pilot project (Co-ordination, Institutional Development and Advisory
Services to Support Private Farmers; 1998-2000), extension service offices were foundedthroughout BiH (Arcotrass et al., 2006). In the RS, PHARE project financed the establishment of
seven advisory services in Banja Luka region with a central office in Banja Luka. In the second
phase (2000-2002), five regional centers have been established covering the entire territory of RS.
Funds were provided also through the National Extension Services for Bosnia and Herzegovina(EU-ESP) project (MAFWM-RS, 2010).
In May 2002, the Agricultural Extension Service of the RS (Official Gazette of the RS, No 36,
June 21, 2002) was established within the Ministry of Agriculture. Two years later, theGovernment of the RS established the Agency for providing services in agriculture, as a separate
professional and legal organization, with a wide range of activities including agricultural extension
services. The Agency is headquartered in Banja Luka and has five regional offices i.e. Banja Luka,
Doboj, Bijeljina, Sokolac, and Trebinje; where work 21 advisors and administrative staff (about
48% female) for 221,000 rural households in the RS. All regional offices are financed by thegovernment of the RS and each one of them covers from 9 to 21 of municipalities (MAFWM-RS,
2010).
The agricultural extension system in the RS includes municipal based advisers - within the
Department for Economic and Social Affairs - supported by a central support unit with specialist
adviser capacity, based in Banja Luka (Arcotrass et al., 2006). The number of officers for
agriculture in municipalities in each region ranges from 9 (Trebinje) to 28 (Banja Luka)(MAFWM-RS, 2010). The Advisory Services Agency (ASA) in the RS is financed by the Entity
budget but can also apply for funds from development projects. Seven municipal offices in Banja
Luka area (i.e. Kozarska Dubica, Gradiska, Prijedor, Novi Grad, Laktasi, Prnjavor and Kotor
Varos), are financed by municipalities. Generally the service appears to be well appreciated andused, though it remains poorly equipped, under-funded and generally under-manned (Arcotrass etal., 2006). The fact that extension is managed by a state agency provides some space for extension
management and maintaining distance from day-to-day political decisions (FAO, 2011).
The EU-ESP project helped also establishing cantonal agricultural advisory services in theFBiH. The extension system was established at canton level but the commitment of most cantons
was minimal and no central services were established to support the system (Arcotrass et al., 2006).
Field advisors are part of the municipal administration (FAO, 2011). With this organizational setup
extension superiors in the cantonal ministries of agriculture usually have little say regarding theextension service managed by municipalities. The relative advantage of having advisors who areclose to the field and its actors, as well as the apparently positive ratio of farmers to advisors, isquite often counteracted by a deficiency of funds for transport and a great burden of administrative
tasks, minimizing the time available to carry out advisory work. This has led to an almost
asphyxiation of advisory work since the end of the last EU-funded project (FAO, 2011).
All services provided by the public advisory systems in BiH are free; the work of the advisors
is paid for with entity, canton or municipality money (FAO, 2011) (Table 1).
Ⓒ ISERD

138

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-1

As for agricultural extension methodological procedure, more or less clearly defined
individual contact farmer approach has been implemented, focusing the advisory contacts on 40-50
example farms per extension agent (FAO, 2011). Advisors use many group extension andcommunication methods (e.g. lectures, seminars, demonstrations, field days, events, etc.) andindividual methods (e.g. farm visits, contacts at extension offices, phone calls). The main media
used are the internet, leaflets, posters, brochures, and mass media (Table 1).
Table 1 Characteristics and methodological procedure of the public advisory services in theentities of the FBiH and RS
Characteristics
Institutional
Setup
Field advisors
FinanceResources of field advisors
Approach to farm families
Media
Priority setting

RS
FBiH
State agency: Advisory Services
Under responsibility of cantons
AgencyField advisors are agency
Field advisors are part ofstaff (agriculture administration) municipality administration
Agency  budget  (300.000  €  in  Cantonal budget
2009)
Office, telephone, PC, Internet
Office, telephone, PC, Internet
access, vehicle
accessIndividual contacts (sample farmer)
Leaflets, brochures, Radio, TV
No defined procedure/ policy dependent

Source: Adapted from FAO, 2011

Advisors provide services dealing mainly with agriculture production, processing andmarketing (i.e. vegetables and fruit growing, animal husbandry, processing and quality of agrofood products, agro-economy). In the RS, most of extension agents are agriculture engineers thathave general educational orientation (e.g. crop production, livestock production, fruit growing)
while the number of specialists e.g. plant protection, irrigation, agricultural machinery, is modest.
The fact that the majority of the field staff are agricultural experts induces a strong focus on
production techniques and a relative preference given to large farms (FAO, 2011). The target group
includes mainly farmers eligible for incentives. Extension generally lack market or farmmanagement focus (Arcotrass et al., 2006). According to Swanson (2008), in most developing
countries,   extension’s   focus   has   concentrated   on   technology   transfer   for the major food crops.
Extension agents also assist agricultural producers to gather in cooperatives and associations, help
them to prepare business plans and to apply for credits. However, such an ambitious plan is far
from matched by personnel, technical equipment and financial resources.
The Bosnian public agricultural extension service is strongly focused on production
techniques, while farm management, markets and marketing, regional rural development and thepromotion of producer organizations are only partially served. Extension agents are only able tothinly cover the areas of farm economy and farm development planning. Bosnian farmers’  knowledge and skills requirements encompass issues of production, farm management (e.g. data
recording), marketing and rural development. Rural development is not systematically supportedby the public advisory systems due to an overload of work, and to the general lack of knowledge(on projects and programs) and skills (on group facilitation and group management) (FAO, 2011).
Advisory services face many finance, management and technical support problems as well as
those related to mentality, low motivation and enthusiasm, overload with non-advisory activities,
etc. According to the MAFWM-RS (2010), the main problems faced by the public extension
system are: low number of extension agents; limited funding; lack of information flows between
the advisory services and the Ministry of Agriculture; weak participation in international projects;
confusion about the role and functions of the Agency; low interest of farmers for training; lack oflong-term agricultural policy; and lack of specialized research institutions.
Advisors spend most of their working hours doing administrative tasks, first of all thoserelated to incentive measures. According to FAO (2011), the handling and the administration ofregional and national support programs dominates part of the activities of the public extensionⒸ ISERD

139

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-1

services (FAO, 2011). Moreover, there is still a strong legacy of the former Yugoslav socialist
system and the traditional top-down approach is widely used while the Agricultural Knowledge andInformation System (AKIS) (Engel, 1997; Röling, 1996) and, the more recent, Agricultural
Innovation System (AIS) (World Bank, 2006; Hall et al., 2006) concepts diffusion is limited.
Besides public extension services, many institutions provide advisory services such as
cooperatives, agricultural and veterinary institutes and stations as well as private actors. In general,
there are four types of private actors in agricultural extension: input suppliers; agricultural products
purchasers; private trainer-advisor-outreach agencies; and mass media (Neuchatel Group, 1999). In
BiH, communication and cooperation between the public, semi-public and private actors involvedin the agricultural extension system is generally weak and unsystematic. In fact, Bosnian extension
agents have no regular cooperation with the applied research institutes, universities, NGOs, andprivate extension providers. Meanwhile, they have poor cooperation with input suppliers andprocessors  while  cooperation  with  farmers’  groups  and  associations  is  sporadic  (FAO,  2011).
Bosnian extension agents lack systematic offers of professional training as there is no
systematically planned and performed in-service training program. However, there are donor
projects that provide training on a broad range of agriculture and rural development issues.
Nevertheless, these trainings are not coordinated and planned, nor institutionalized at national
and/or regional level and are thus potentially not accessible to all agricultural advisors. Agriculturaladvisors need training regarding the following issues: farming systems approach; extension
methodology; farm economy and management; marketing, market development and value chains;environmental impacts of farm production; EU regulations; etc. (FAO, 2011).
In future, the agricultural knowledge system including education, research, extension andagribusiness needs to focus on how to improve the farm household’s  income,   as   opposed   to  just  improving production. This requires a much sharper focus on the economics of technology andinvestments and on risk acceptability to farmers. In the reorganization of the extension services it
must be realized that the technologies devised for the social farms are inappropriate for the private
farms. A complete reversal of production technologies is now required (Arcotrass et al., 2006). The
extension system must be flexible, user-driven, and focused on local problems (World Bank, 2008).
Both public and private extension resources should be fully used; accountability to clients
increased and more responsibilities transferred to the private sector (Arcotrass et al., 2006).
Linkages between advisory services and public stakeholders as well as research and education
institutions dealing with ARD should be strengthened. Agricultural education, training and researchsystems should be strengthened as well. It is essential that the research system engages universities,
private sector research and civil society organizations, and stimulates the scaling-up of innovations(Hall et al., 2006 and World Bank, 2008). Research needs to be more integrated into the agricultural
sector transformation by moving from agricultural research and development to Agricultural
Research for Development (AR4D). The agricultural education and training system needs to adapt
as well to meet the new dynamics of agricultural innovation. Education institutes, both higher andvocational, have to offer more relevant subject matters for agricultural innovation (Daane, 2010).
CONCLUSION
Access to information and knowledge is crucial for the development of Bosnian agriculture andrural areas. Modern agricultural extension and advisory services in BiH are organized on entity
level. There are also cantonal (FBiH) and regional (RS) offices. Bosnian advisors use many groupand individual extension methods and media. However, advisors focus mainly on crop and animal
production. They also assist producers to gather in cooperatives.
Advisory services face many financial, management and technical problems. The traditional
top-down approach is still widely used. Funds available for field-level extension activities and inservice training courses for the extension staff are very limited. For all these weaknesses andproblems the involvement of other actors in the extension work is crucial if the system is to keepwith   rural   people’s   expectations   and   to   meet   their   needs.   In   the   framework   of   the   agricultural  innovation system, there is a clear role for public, private and civil society organizations to work
Ⓒ ISERD

140

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-1

together in providing extension services to rural households.
Higher attention should be paid to modernizing and supporting Bosnian advisory services toallow them to assume fully their role as a main bridging actor in the dissemination of knowledge
and the promotion of rural innovation, diversification, multifunctionality and sustainability. It isnecessary to develop a pluralistic, participatory, bottom-up, decentralized, farmer-led and marketdriven advisory system. The agricultural extension system should use advice, non-formal educationand facilitation paradigms not only to achieve food security but also to manage natural resources;
improve rural livelihoods; and build rural social capital. Well-performing agricultural advisory
services are indispensable for achieving sustainable agricultural and rural development.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Authors would like to thank all the extension agents that participated to the semi-structured
interviews and took part in focus group discussions.
REFERENCES
Arcotrass, et al. 2006. Study on the state of agriculture in five applicant countries: Bosnia and Herzegovina
country report. Study undertaken by Arcotrass GmbH (Germany), in association with Vakakis
International SA (Greece), EuroCare GmbH (Germany) and AKI (Hungary).
ASBiH. 2012. Anketa o radnoj snazi 2012 (Labour Force Survey 2012). Agency for Statistics of BiH(ASBiH), Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Daane, J. 2010. Enhancing performance of agricultural innovation systems. Rural Development News,
1/2010, 76-82.
EC. 2012. Bosnia and Herzegovina: 2012 progress report. European Commission (EC), Brussels, Belgium.
Engel, P. 1997. The social organization of innovation. Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
FAO. 2011. Assessment of the human capacity development needs for, and gaps in, the Agricultural
Advisory Services in Western Balkans. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations;Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia, Budapest, Hungary.
Hall, A., Mytelka, L., and Oyeyinka, B. 2006. Concepts and guidelines for diagnostic assessments ofagricultural innovation capacity. United Nations University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Lampietti, A.J., Lugg, D.G., Van der Celen, Ph., and Branczik, A. 2009. The changing face of rural space:
agriculture and rural development in the Western Balkans. Directions in Development (DID) Agriculture and Rural Development. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development(IBRD), Washington D.C., USA.
Leeuwis C. 2004. Communication for rural innovation: rethinking agricultural extension. Blackwell
publishing, Oxford, UK.
MAFWM-RS. 2010. Strategija savjetovanih aktivnosti u poljoprivredi (Strategy for the development ofAgricultural Advisory Service in the RS). Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management of
the Republika Srpska (MAFWM-RS), Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Neuchatel Group. 1999. Common framework on agricultural extension. Paris, France.
Röling, N. 1996. Towards an interactive agricultural science. Journal of Agricultural Education andExtension, 2/4, 35-48.
Swanson, B. 2008. Global review of good agricultural extension and advisory service practices. FAO, Rome.
Swanson, B., Rajalahti, R. 2010. Strengthening agricultural extension and advisory systems: procedures forassessing, transforming, and evaluating extension systems. Agriculture and Rural Development
Discussion Paper 45. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Washington D.C.,
USA.
USAID. 2012. Expert consultation on the G8 new alliance for food security and nutrition ICT extension
Challenge. October 11-12, 2012; Final report. Washington D.C., USA.
World Bank. 2006. Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: how to go beyond the strengthening of researchsystems. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), Washington D.C., USA.
World Bank. 2008. World development report 2008: Agriculture for development. World Bank, Washington
D.C., USA.

Ⓒ ISERD

141