About the Report

This report is based on primary and secondary research, 

consultation with experts in both extension and peacebuilding, 

and on presentations made and discussion held at a roundtable 

workshop on May 1, 2012. The Roundtable on Technology, 

Science and Peacebuilding, a partnership between the National 

Academy of Engineering and the United States Institute of 

Peace established in 2011, is designed to identify ways in 

which scientific and technological methods might be adopted 

by peacebuilders. The views expressed in this report are those 

of the author and should be ascribed neither to the United 

States Institute of Peace nor the National Academy 

of Engineering. 

About the Author

Andrew Robertson is senior program officer in the Center of 

Innovation for Science, Technology, and Peacebuilding at the 

United States Institute of Peace. Prior to this, Andrew was 

director at the Corporate Executive Board, a consultant for FSI, 

Inc., and a research engineer for Nissan Motor Company. He 

holds a PhD in the history of science from Harvard University 

and an ME in computer and electrical engineering from 

Dartmouth College.

2301 Constitution Ave., NW • Washington, DC 20037 • 202.457.1700 • fax 202.429.6063

Special Report 320 December 2012

© 2012 by the United States Institute of Peace. 

All rights reserved.

Contents

Introduction 2

Extension in the Developing World 2

Conflict in Rural Communities 3

Characteristics of an Extension System 

for Peacebuilding 6

Conclusion 10

Andrew Robertson

Enabling Agricultural 

Extension for 

Peacebuilding

Summary

•	 For many of the one and half billion people living in fragile states, violent conflict is the 

principal impediment to development, disrupting food production and destroying agricultural investments.

•	 Extension systems have improved agricultural productivity, profitability, and sustainability 

by providing technical and commercial information that changes farmer practice and could 

help farming communities struggling to deal with the consequences of war.

•	 Extension systems are, however, under substantial pressure, and most national budgets for 

extension are in long-term decline.

•	 Given such pressures, managers of extension systems will likely insist they are hard pressed 

to develop the competencies needed to support sustainable growth in agriculture, let alone 

accept additional responsibilities for peacebuilding.

•	 Decentralized, participatory market-driven extension systems have been successful in 

augmenting farmer capabilities with additional competencies, such as financial and market 

knowledge. Offering access to expertise (rather than expertise itself), agents in decentralized systems can respond quickly and effectively to varied farmer needs. Agents could use 

these same approaches to connect farmers to the experts and resources they need to manage conflict in their communities.

•	 Information technology can provide the capacity to match agricultural and conflict management expertise to farmer need. It can improve the reach and productivity of extension 

agents as it reduces the risk of inappropriate use of system resources. Training and technical 

support are necessary to improve transparency and accountability.

United States Institute of Peace www.usip.org

SPECIAL REPORT
2 

•	 To select the appropriate experts, extension agents must be able to diagnose the problems 

farmers face. For extension to have a role in peacebuilding, extension agents should be 

able to analyze conflict, its causes, and potential solutions.

•	 The credibility of extension agents depends on their capacity to help farmers overcome 

agricultural problems. Technical knowledge, inclusivity, and access to resources are critical. 

Ideally, assistance should be neutral and unbiased. Training on how conflict affects extension and how bias might worsen conflict should enhance the credibility of extension agents 

in the communities they serve.

Introduction

Without doubt violent conflict devastates food production. It destroys crops, farm equipment, seed stock, and other farming capital. It reduces access to water, drives farmers from 

their land, and disrupts the transportation networks needed to access markets. Agricultural 

extension systems have helped improve agricultural productivity, profitability, and sustainability in the developing world by training rural people to use more effective agricultural 

technologies, to apply improved irrigation techniques, and to organize and manage their 

operations more efficiently. Potentially, they can be as effective helping farming communities struggling to deal with the consequences of war.

Over the past twenty years, agricultural extension programs in the developing world 

have shifted to a decentralized, market-focused approach capable of supporting the local 

institutions and knowledge necessary to help farmers be productive and profitable. Such 

approaches have emphasized training front-line extension officers able not only to communicate technical and product information regarding the latest agricultural advances, but 

also to provide guidance to local populations about accessing markets, brokering investment 

opportunities, and facilitating inclusive farmer organizations.

Because of extension’s role in organizing such a wide range of agricultural activities, 

extension systems can help societies slipping into or emerging from conflict. Drawing on 

existing relationships to farming communities, extension agents could be an important 

component in a strategy to address both the causes and consequences of conflict. Where 

disagreement exists over how to use land—such as in land disputes or in conflicts between 

herders and farmers—extension agents can be trained and deployed to support more 

peaceful resolution. Likewise, when ex-combatants and IDPs return to their communities, 

extension agents can help retrain and reintegrate these people into farming communities.

This report investigates how extension systems might be organized, their agents 

trained, and their technical infrastructure updated to support a peacebuilding role. Briefly, 

it describes the current state of extension in the developing world, provides an overview 

of how conflict affects farming communities and consequently extension agents’ ability to 

improve farmer productivity, and proposes a role for agents in helping manage conflict in 

rural communities. Recognizing that extension systems, though wide reaching, are underresourced, this report argues that extension agents can materially affect conflict with only 

modest adjustments to what is currently considered best practice in the organization and 

management of extension systems.

Extension in the Developing World

At its most basic, extension is adult education. Extension systems provide information 

farmers can use to improve harvest productivity and quality. They direct information on 

the practice of farming from agricultural researchers in universities and government laboratories, input providers such as seed or fertilizer companies, nongovernment organizations 

The views expressed in this report do not necessarily 

reflect the views of the United States Institute of Peace, 

which does not advocate specific policy positions.

To request permission to photocopy or reprint materials, 

e-mail: permissions@usip.org.

About the Institute

The United States Institute of Peace is an independent, 

nonpartisan institution established and funded by Congress. 

Its goals are to help prevent and resolve violent conflicts, 

promote postconflict peacebuilding, and increase conflict 

management tools, capacity, and intellectual capital worldwide. The Institute does this by empowering others with 

knowledge, skills, and resources, as well as by its direct 

involvement in conflict zones around the globe.

Board of Directors

J. Robinson West (Chair), Chairman, PFC Energy •

George E. Moose (Vice Chair), Adjunct Professor of 

Practice, The George Washington University • Judy Ansley,

Former Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser under President George W. Bush • Eric Edelman,

Hertog Distinguished Practitioner in Residence, Johns Hopkins 

School of Advanced International Studies • Kerry Kennedy, 

President, Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human 

Rights • Ikram U. Khan, President, Quality Care Consultants, 

LLC • Stephen D. Krasner, Graham H. Stuart Professor 

of International Relations, Stanford University • John A. 

Lancaster, Former Executive Director of the National Council 

on Independent Living • Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor, 

George Mason School of Law • Judy Van Rest, Executive Vice 

President, International Republican Institute • Nancy Zirkin,

Executive Vice President, Leadership Conference on Civil and 

Human Rights

Members Ex Officio

Michael H. Posner, Assistant Secretary of State for 

Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor • James N. Miller, 

Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy •

Gregg F. Martin, Major General, U.S. Army; President, 

National Defense University • Jim Marshall, 

President, United States Institute of Peace (nonvoting) 
 3

(NGOs), and even other farmers to the farming community. Generally speaking, extension 

systems communicate such information through a mix of four activities: technology transfer, 

advisory services, nonformal education, and facilitation.1

The exact mix of these activities has changed over time. Under the World Bank’s Training and Visit programs of the 1970s, technology transfer activities disseminated the seed 

and fertilizer technologies that enabled the Green Revolution across the developing world. 

However, the cost of maintaining the expertise necessary to support such programs and 

questions about the relevance of much of the transferred technology to farmer needs led 

the World Bank to end funding for the program. Driven by these twin concerns of cost and 

relevance, extension systems have more recently opted to scale through group outreach 

activities such as nonformal education or facilitation. To help farmers get the help they 

need, targeted methods such as advisory services and (again) facilitation have also become 

more common. Indeed, facilitated extension in which agents work locally with groups of 

farmers to identify common problems and develop shared solutions has now become the 

gold standard for extension work.2

A consequence of this trend has been a broadening of the kinds of knowledge that 

extension agents are expected to provide. A wider range of agricultural knowledge plus 

information that supports the farmer as a businessperson are now essential if the agent is 

to be effective. Agents can thus no longer be expert in all the material that should be communicated. Rather than knowing the answer as experts would, extension agents are shifting 

to a service model in which they work as knowledge brokers, providing access to information 

whether it be from a professor at a university, a development expert in an NGO, or a data 

set analyzed and reported online. In such a model, the cost of adding additional fields of 

knowledge is relatively low. For example, to provide advice on marketing, agents need have 

only a basic understanding of the issues, a potentially template-based ability to diagnose 

what clients’ issues might be, and a network of trusted experts or information sources to 

which the agents and clients can turn for guidance.

Why are these two trends in extension important? In much of the developing world, 

extension systems are under pressure. Despite steep population growth and increasing 

environmental degradation, global budgets for many national agriculture agencies have 

shown long-term decline.3 Extension networks within most nations remain far-reaching, but 

agents are spread thin and have neither the time nor the operating budgets necessary to 

fully engage the clients they have on the agricultural issues those clients face. Under these 

circumstances, the question we need to ask is how extension agents can be expected to 

manage yet another aspect of rural life, no matter how important.

But conflict is important. It is the principal obstacle preventing many developing nations 

from emerging from poverty. If agriculture is to be the engine by which developing nations 

lead their people to greater prosperity,4 extension agents must understand how conflict 

and violence affect their communities and be provided resources and guidance for disrupting those dynamics. Offering services based on science and intended to help improve farm 

productivity and build rural well-being, extension agents are perhaps the most trusted of 

the government representatives in rural communities. This comparative credibility can be 

an important asset in stabilizing and managing conflict. First, though, we look at the kinds 

of problems confronting farming communities during conflict.

Conflict in Rural Communities

The 2011 World Development Report titled Conflict, Security and Development emphasizes 

two things. First, it points to conflict and violence as “a primary development challenge 

of our time.”5 Describing a world in which fully one and half billion people face the social 

Extension agents are perhaps 

the most trusted of the 

government representatives 

in rural communities. This 

comparative credibility can be 

an important asset in stabilizing 

and managing conflict. 
4 

fragility caused by war and violence, the report makes a powerful case that conflict exacts 

high social and economic costs that can last for generations. Where violence is endemic, 

people are more than twice as likely to be undernourished, and their children are both more 

than three times as likely to be unable to attend school and also twice as likely to die before 

age five than those in other developing countries.6

Second, the report notes a global shift since the end of the Cold War in the nature of violence and conflict. Lacking the discipline imposed and the resources provided by the larger 

confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States, regional disagreements are 

less and less often resolved using the formalized violence of armies contesting for national 

or regional power. Globally, fewer wars (whether interstate or intrastate) are occurring. In 

their place are emerging conflicts driven by increasingly well-organized nonstate actors—

drug cartels, terrorist networks, or political parties—where the political goals of the actor 

may be no higher than destabilization for ongoing economic exploitation. In nations where 

conflict and violence break out, domestic (such as unemployment, inequality, or corruption) or international (invasion, conflict spillovers, or price shocks) stressors overwhelm 

the capability of legitimate institutions to cope. Where institutions are weak and cannot 

intervene to defuse these political, economic, and social stresses—as in Colombia in the 

late twentieth century and the Democratic Republic of the Congo of the present—conflict, 

violence, and war often erupt.7

When institutions are weak, the state may be as much the problem as the solution. In 

countries with track records of conflict and violence, the citizenry mistrust the motives and 

competence of government. In the worst cases, the security forces, judicial system, and 

military are simply other gangs intent on exploiting the people. More often, they are simply 

passive bystanders, either bought off or intimidated by better-armed, better-resourced organizations (often the case with drug cartels in Mexico). Building the institutional capacity to 

manage conflict requires a credible starting place that, if not fully trusted by the citizenry, 

is at least not completely dismissed, which many police, juridical, and military institutions 

can be.

As a source of education and training, extension has credibility as a positive (if not 

always effective) element of rural people’s lives. As such, it can be an important asset in creating legitimate state mechanisms for managing conflict in rural communities. By delivering 

information that can materially affect people’s lives, extension can be a basis for improving 

government legitimacy and credibility.

Extension systems should not be expected to address all conflict problems. In general, 

extension personnel have expertise and credibility in problems related to agriculture and 

agricultural resource use, principally land and water. Conflict arising from disagreements 

over land ownership, access, and use seem a natural focus for extension agents. Issues such 

as land disputes, the integration of IDPs, conflict between pastoralists and farmers, and 

the demobilization of soldiers have dimensions that lend themselves to the participation of 

extension agents. For example, in the wake of conflict, extension agents might manage a 

range of support services helping demobilized soldiers become productive members of the 

farming communities they left to go to war. They might also educate farmers in dispute on 

evidentiary standards within the legal system (see table 1).

The precise issues an extension system might address clearly depend on the particular 

conflict and its dynamics. 

The problems described in table 1 are conflict problems. They exist within societies 

where violence is accepted as a reasonable means to an end. Consequently, asking extension 

agents to accept a role in peacebuilding could make them targets for violence. A critical 

question is therefore how activist extension agents should be in responding to conflict. 

Since broadcast media were used in the Rwandan and Bosnian crises of the early 1990s to 

Conflict arising from 

disagreements over land 

ownership, access, and use 

seem a natural focus for 

extension agents.
 5

accelerate genocide, media practitioners and scholars have wrestled with a similar question: 

what the role of journalists in peacebuilding should be, and how activist media professionals 

should be in working to end conflict. Their conclusions are instructive. Broadly speaking, 

media scholars and practitioners have adopted a range positions across a continuum ranging 

from a standard of do no harm to one of do positive good. What is at stake in their arguments is how much journalists should adjust their commitment to journalistic objectivity 

and neutrality when working in conflict zones. Advocates of the do-no-harm standard argue 

that media in conflict zones must be aware of how their work as journalists might affect 

the conflict. If a story would exacerbate violence, it should not be published. Proponents of 

a more activist position argue that journalists’ laying out options for peaceable resolution 

of a conflict is nothing more than investigative reporting with a positive public good as a 

goal. As such—as long as journalists do not take sides in providing such information—journalistic neutrality (and the journalists’ ability to interact with both sides in the conflict) is 

preserved.8

Extension agents sit in a similar situation: ideally they want to preserve neutrality in 

terms of who they serve and how. As purveyors of scientific knowledge, they aspire to 

neutrality in providing rural communities with practical farming information. In practice, 

however, they often lack resources and may not be able to provide services equally to all 

stakeholders in a community. This can exacerbate political, social, and economic tensions 

that can lead to grievance and conflict. Providing valuable services to the community, 

extension agents must at a minimum recognize the impact their presence has on rural politics and conflict. Likewise, by consciously working to share information and resources with 

both sides, they can also develop a neutral course of action that, while advancing peace, 

does not compromise their ability to work with both sides in a dispute.

It is reasonable for donors sponsoring extension activities or trainors teaching agricultural skills in fragile states to consider the consequences of asking extension agents to participate in peacebuilding. In practice, however, some extension agents in fragile societies 

are already involved in managing and mitigating sources of conflict. In Kenya, for example, 

extension agents are assisting communities in reintegrating the IDPs created during the 

postelection crisis of 2007 and 2008. In South Sudan, extension agents are working with 

land registry specialists to help register holdings and manage land disputes.9 From this 

perspective, the problem is less whether extension agents can or should work to ameliorate 

Problem Role for Extension Potential Activity

Land disputes Breakdown of mechanisms for managing land 

disputes between farmers providing flash points 

for other types of grievances.

Act to support and hasten settlements both 

within and between the statutory and traditional 

judiciary systems.

Provide farmers guidance on how to package 

traditional evidence for use in statutory legal 

system. 

Returning IDPs Access to basic security, economic support, and 

social services tends to become haphazard, which 

can prevent successful reintegration. 

Provide information for training, health-care, and 

other social services related to reintegration.

Ensure that IDPs and communities receive 

appropriate support services; access to training, 

start-up capital, and other services needed to 

return to farming.

Access disputes Population shifts, land use change, and 

allegiances held during conflict can all contribute 

to increased confrontation along pastoral 

migration routes.

Help rebuild relationships and resolve land 

use and access issues between the farmer and 

pastoralist groups.

Provide training to community leaders in 

culturally relevant peacebuilding and conflict 

resolution techniques; organize summits between 

community leaders. 

Reintegrating 

soldiers

Reintegration programs that provide farming skills 

and capital to demobilized soldiers often lack 

consistent follow-up.

Provide a consistent point of contact for 

demobilized soldiers; provide early intervention 

when reintegration and reconciliation falters.

Meet regularly with soldiers to monitor their 

progress and to advise them in using the 

agricultural tools, supplies, and farm land provided 

through the program.

Table 1. Opportunities to Use Extension for Peacebuilding in Rural Communities

Sources: Jon Unruh, “Land Rights in Postwar Liberia: The Volatile Part of the Peace Process,” Land Use Policy 26 (2009): 431–32; Mike Jacobs and Catherine A. Schloeder, “Empowering 

Afghanistan’s Extensive Livestock Producers” (unpublished paper), 4–6; Patricia Weiss Fagen, “Refugees and IDPs after Conflict” (Washington, DC: USIP, 2011), 1; Christopher 

Blattman and Jeannie Annan, “Reintegrating and Employing High Risk Youth in Liberia: Lessons from a Randomized Evaluation of a Landmine Action Agricultural Training Program 

for Ex-Combatants” (Cambridge, MA: IPA, 2012), 2–4.
6 

conflict. In places in the midst of or emerging from conflict, such considerations are selfevident and already the basis for action. The question instead is from the perspective of the 

donor and NGO community that supports and builds the capacity of these systems: how can 

we formalize these peacebuilding capabilities in extension systems when we move to help 

strengthen extension in these environments?

Finally, in a conflict, the problems farming communities face vary with time and geography. Before a conflict, the problem may be land disputes that inflame ethnic tensions. 

During conflict, however, the problem may present as managing the volume of IDPs created 

by the threat of violence, and afterward as reintegration of demobilized soldiers. Furthermore, in different regions within a conflict, these problems may occur at different times, in 

a different order, or even not at all. An extension system adapted to conflict must be able 

to accommodate such variability effectively.

Characteristics of an Extension System for Peacebuilding

Like farming, conflict is a local phenomenon. The specific knowledge, skills, or capabilities 

necessary for an extension system to assist in peacebuilding will depend on the particulars 

of the conflict. Such a system, however, has certain general characteristics.

Organizational Structure

In managing wide variation in farmers’ needs for agricultural advice, extension systems have 

had some success using decentralized service models. Such models have much to teach in 

managing the delivery of highly varied technical information. In the late 1990s, the government of India and the World Bank funded the Agricultural Technology Management Agency 

(ATMA), a reorganization of India’s top-down extension system into a decentralized system 

designed to deliver extension based on farmers’ needs. The goal was to shift farm production 

from subsistence grains to market-oriented high value crops—such as vegetables, spices, or 

oil seeds. This required much broader agricultural information to support production of these 

new crops but also access to new forms of nonagricultural information—price information, 

logistics, and financing, for example—to help farmers take these new products to market.

To serve this level of variability, ATMA agents were trained to act as brokers between 

the farming communities and various departments in the Indian government, NGOs, input 

suppliers, and international organizations. The system provided means for flexibly and continuously passing information (needs) from village farmers up to government and passing 

funding, expert services, and information (solutions) to farming communities (see figure 1). 

Contrary to the top-down planning processes used more generally by India’s Department of 

Agriculture, ATMA pushed management, planning, and budget decisions for extension down 

to the district and subdistrict levels. Assisted by extension agents, farmers organized into 

interest groups (FIGs) and women into self-help groups (SHGs) that focused on particular 

agricultural products at the village level. Over time, as these interest groups identified 

what problems they faced in producing and marketing these new high value crops, extension agents provided access to the training and funding necessary to address those needs. 

At the subdistrict level, Farm Information and Advisory Centers (FIACs) integrated queries 

from village interest groups and self-help groups to determine the information, training, and 

technology requirements for the subdistrict. Technology specialists within the FIAC helped 

source information and technology to address these requirements.10

Providing information that answered farmer needs, the ATMA project materially improved 

farming practice in the communities it served. Both the variety of problems addressed and 

breadth of solutions offered were substantial. For example, in the Patna district of Bihar state, 

ATMA supported more than seven hundred farmer interest and self-help groups organized 
 7

around fourteen crops that included beans, rice, flowers, honey, and even mushrooms. Fortyfive self-help groups focused on using microcredit to develop small businesses. Both the scope 

of information and its impact were impressive. After five years, in 2003, farming households 

targeted by the program reported a 24 percent increase in annual income from larger harvests 

of high value crops and reduced emphasis on the production of staples. Control groups reported only a 5 percent increase in household income over the same period.11 The ATMA model 

provided the means not only to organize and communicate new knowledge and attitudes 

regarding the marketing of high value crops to farming communities, but also to engage those 

communities in ways that led to substantive change in farming behavior. Similarly organized, 

such a system could provide the information, expertise, and resources necessary to help farmers address the causes and consequences of conflict in their communities.

The ATMA project built credibility by improving the quality and effectiveness of extension’s services. This required extension agents to design and fund programs to help farmers 

adopt the science-based agricultural knowledge provided to them. Building credibility also 

required giving some control of the program’s direction to the farmers, however. Although 

extension agents undertook much of the early planning, over time the farmers took over 

management of the interest groups. At higher levels in the ATMA hierarchy, farmers could 

be elected by their peers to membership on both the district governing boards and FIAC. 

By providing practical, science-based knowledge, designing and operating relevant extension programming, and including farmers in governing the program and its activities, the 

ATMA program delivered effective extension. By providing competent advice that addressed 

farmers’ problems, ATMA built trust and enhanced the credibility of the extension system.12

Such decentralized and participatory approaches are well suited to efficiently delivering the types of information required for conflict management and peacebuilding support 

in farming communities. First, the system is responsive. If conflict is reducing agricultural 

productivity, farmers can get the assistance they need to address the problem. Second, 

it is efficient. It links only expertise that the community requires. Third, it does not 

place a heavy burden on the agent to master new knowledge related to peacebuilding. 

Fourth, credit for success accrues to the extension system and thus to the government. 

Success creates a virtuous cycle that emphasizes the government as a positive factor in 

farmers’ lives.

Source: Author’s compilation based on Burton Swanson, K. M. Singh, and R. N. Reddy, “A Decentralized, Farmer-Led, Market-Driven Extension System: The ATMA Model in India” 

(presentation, International Food Policy Research Institute, April 8, 2008), 8.

state

district

subdistrict

village

FUNDING

farmer interest groups (FIGs)/

women’s self-help groups (SHGs)

ATMA Management Committee

ATMA governing board & director

Agricultural Technology

Management Agency (ATMA)

input 

suppliers

NGOs

government

departments

universities

Sources of Expertise

PLANNING

EXPERTISE

farm information & advisory centers (FIAC)

advisory committee technology team

Figure 1. Decentralized Organization of India’s Agricultural Technology Management Agency (ATMA)

By providing competent 

advice that addressed farmers’ 

problems, ATMA built trust and 

enhanced the credibility of the 

extension system.
8 

Decentralization opens the door to being more responsive to communities but at the 

same time places additional demands on extension agents both in their interactions with 

farmers and in the range of knowledge and partners necessary to deliver the needed support. To manage decentralization and facilitate the creation of producer organizations, such 

as ATMA’s farmer interest groups or self-help groups, needs assessment, facilitation, and 

trust-building skills are critical. Likewise, decentralized decision making requires extension 

agents to better understand planning and accounting best practice. Information technology 

also has a role. It can create transparency in agent activities and can guide agents to the 

knowledge necessary to advise farmers.

Enabling Technology

To help farmers innovate in producing, storing, and distributing food, extension systems 

disseminate agricultural technology and information. Technology has a role in making this 

process more efficient and effective. Extension administrators have aggressively investigated ways of using information technology to enable broader and deeper engagement 

with farmers. In peacebuilding as well, technology is also being adopted to collect, analyze, 

and distribute information. Drawing on the experience of these two domains in information 

technology, what technical capabilities are necessary to support a decentralized, participatory extension system engaged in peacebuilding?

Technology affects two aspects of extension agents’ work. First, it provides information 

and support that improves the capacity of farmers to act. Second, it does the same for the 

agents. With appropriate technology, both farmers and extension agents can improve the 

performance and reduce the risks related to their work (see table 2). Improved performance 

either reduces the amount or quality of an input needed for an activity, or increases the 

amount or quality of an output produced; risk reduction activities broadly defined reduce 

variation in outcomes. For farmers, this could mean activities that inhibit the effects of 

drought, pests, or potentially war. For extension agents, risk reduction could include work 

to limit the misappropriation of public resources or enhance transparency and accountability.

Successful information technology projects in fragile environments share a number of 

important characteristics. First, they are never showcases only for technology but always 

solutions to a pressing problem facing a community. Second, they tend to be based on 

improving user access to a service or an asset rather than providing ownership. Third, they 

tend to be managed to ensure availability of services to all stakeholders in a community. By 

providing equitable access to information resources, such projects avoid exacerbating social, 

political, and economic inequalities in the community. Fourth, they tend to be designed 

with a view to sustainability, either as public services or as private enterprises. Last, they 

operate in comparatively well-regulated environments. This is especially true of communications technologies running on shared or public infrastructure.13

Sustained success in adopting technology, financing development, and continuously 

refreshing core datasets by stakeholders depends entirely on whether users benefit from the 

technology. In the private sector, this is the principal question investors ask before they 

put their money on the table. In the public sector, the question is often overlooked. Even if 

donors cover the cost of developing and operating a system, stakeholders must still derive 

greater value from the system than their cost to use it. These costs may not be monetary. 

For example, data-sharing systems—even when free—burden the user with various activities related to data collection and reformatting and may even undermine the reputation and 

status of a user in their community. That some of the costs—such as how sharing data and 

the implicit relationship created affects the reputation of users—are difficult to measure 

and may hinder adoption even more.

Extension administrators have 

aggressively investigated ways 

of using information technology 

to enable broader and deeper 

engagement with farmers. 
 9

It is important to recognize that the technical competence required to run even a website 

may be difficult to acquire and keep in a developing society. A high-technology approach 

may not always be appropriate to manage the lists of profiles and contact information and 

undertake the matching process that introduces farmers to experts. The cheapest way to 

publish and disseminate such information may be a hand-cranked printing press and the 

postal system. Which is most appropriate comes down to understanding what approach will 

most inexpensively support development and maintenance of the needed capability.

Extension Personnel Skills

As extension has shifted from a technology transfer model toward one intended to build 

social capital, the skills required of extension agents have changed. Likewise, at least in 

the developed world, the increasing use of information technology to support knowledge 

transfer has required extension agents to become correspondingly more skilled in applying 

communications technology in their teaching and training. Finally, decentralization itself 

places certain demands on extension agents in managing their relationships with farmers 

and subject matter experts. 

A decentralized system shifts many managerial functions—even if only at a very basic 

level of competence—down to the agent level. Table 3 is an amalgam of skills and suggests 

the skill requirements for agents and managers within a decentralized extension system.

For technical skill areas—such as agriculture or business management in table 3—agents 

must have enough knowledge to assist their clients. In agriculture, this is especially important. There, agents must have demonstrable agricultural knowledge to be credible. For 

technical skill areas outside agriculture, however, agents need only be able to diagnose the 

farmers’ needs. For agent training purposes, issues could be presented as a frame to guide 

the agent’s diagnosis of what the farmer needs and where the agent can find the solution. 

Because these frames are comparatively simple, they can be learned quickly as conditions 

and needs change. A core capacity to diagnose the causes of conflict is essential. This can 

be augmented with additional frames as needed. For example, during a drought an agent 

could learn additional frames in water management techniques and subsequently even 

Table 2. Using Technology to Build Capacity

For Farmers For Agents

Improve Performance

Problem Improve the returns to smallholder farmer by eliminating the information 

asymmetries between farmers and traders.

Reduce the cost of finding and sharing agricultural information between 

farmers, ministries, and NGOs in Malaysia.

Solution Provide smallholder farmers in West Africa with weekly advisories listing 

changes in relevant local commodity prices, weather predictions, and other 

market information via SMS, website, or phone services.

Develop a web portal for sharing a wide array of services including technical 

information on Malaysian agriculture, registered agriculture service providers, 

pricing information for producers, and information about permit applications. 

Result Subscription can increase farmer income substantially, sometimes by as much 

as 30 percent.

Both farmers and extension agents have access to information resources that 

can enhance farmer knowledge and direct farmers to the appropriate third 

party experts.

Reduce risk

Problem Encourage adoption of more expensive, high productivity seeds. Improve attendance and productivity of ministry staff.

Solution Offer seed insurance indexed to rainfall and other climate information from a 

network of weather stations. If rainfall in a given region of Kenya falls below 

historical benchmarks for farming, insured farmers are reimbursed their costs 

for seed through a mobile money service.

Provide headquarters staff in Afghanistan with identification cards and 

require scanning of cards upon entry to facilities.

Result Following drought during first year of operation, 12,000 entered program in 

second year, a sixty-fold increase.

Card scans enabled management to track and improve attendance. An 

unintended consequence was long lines at security to enter the headquarters 

building each morning.

Source: E-Sourcebook, “ICT in Agriculture: Connecting Smallholders to Knowledge, Networks, and Institutions” (Washington, DC: World Bank), 59–60, 274–75, 323–24; Mike Deal, 

executive director & CEO, Volunteers for Economic Growth Alliance, personal communication, March 30, 2012.
10 

develop expertise in managing disputes with pastoralists as migration patterns change in 

response to the drought.

Many of the skills required by extension agents to operate in a decentralized system—

such as project management, facilitation, planning, and budgeting—are also required for 

successful community-based peacebuilding. The responsiveness, reliability, and transparency generated by good project management are important basic components in building 

trust independent of whether the immediate goal is adoption of a new agricultural technique 

or resolution of a disagreement between two communities in conflict. Ensuring that all 

stakeholders are engaged, providing them the same baseline information, and ensuring that 

all parties agree to next steps and timing are some of the basic project management actions 

that can build trust and facilitate group action no matter the goal.

Finally, extension managers working in such a system are responsible for developing 

long-term strategies related to what knowledge should be delivered through the system. 

Thus they must be capable of identifying emerging issues, determining the corresponding 

knowledge area, and developing plans for staffing, implementing support technologies, 

engaging experts, and training to support delivery of that knowledge. For example, if gender 

violence emerged as a widespread problem in farming communities facing large influxes of 

IDPs, managers would have to respond with a strategy for engaging and supporting experts 

knowledgeable in preventing further outbreaks and helping victims recover.

Conclusion

Independent of peacebuilding, extension systems are under pressure to provide a wide range 

of information and to manage the delivery of that information in addressing the specific 

needs of particular groups of farmers. The solution is a decentralized extension system in 

which agents are trained to facilitate discussion with groups of farmers to identify their 

Agents Managers

Agriculture knowledge

needs analysis

knowledge

needs analysis

strategy

Business management frames

needs analysis

frames

needs analysis

strategy

Conflict management frames

needs analysis

intercultural communication

frames

needs analysis

strategy

Enabling skills planning and budgeting

project management

facilitation/mediation

presentation

training

computer and IT skills

expert management

planning and budgeting

project management

facilitation/mediation

presentation

training

IT strategy

knowledge management

leadership

organizational change

Table 3. Proposed Competencies for Decentralized Extension Systems 

in Peacebuilding

Source: Anita Cooper and Donna Graham; “Competencies Needed to Be Successful County Agents and County 

Supervisors,” Journal of Extension 39, no. 1 (2001), www.joe.org/joe/2001february/rb3.php; Steven Olson and 

Andrew Robertson; “Adapting Agricultural Extension to Peacebuilding” (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 

2012), 30–32; American Library Association, “ALA’s Core Competences of Librarianship,” January 27, 2009, 1–5, 

www.ala.org/educationcareers/sites/ala.org.educationcareers/files/content/careers/corecomp/corecompetences/

finalcorecompstat09.pdf; Susan M. Thompson, ed., “Core Technology Competencies for Librarians and Library Staff—a 

LITE Guide” (New York: Neal-Schuman, 2009), 86–89.
 11

common needs and find subject matter experts to address those needs. This approach minimizes the expert knowledge required by extension agents, who need only enough to make 

correct diagnoses of farmers’ needs and requirements. Training and enabling technologies 

can further lighten the burden on the individual agent.

Within such a system, peacebuilding and conflict management become another valuable network of experts and information that an extension agent can access on behalf of 

farmers to improve productivity. Core training in conflict analysis would enable agents to 

understand the conflict and better determine what sort of solution might be necessary. 

Based on this, they would provide access to experts and organizations with the capacity 

to mitigating the conflict. Training in conflict analysis also helps agents understand the 

possible consequences of their actions in providing agricultural, business management, or 

peacebuilding support and helps them make choices that avoid compromising their credibility or exacerbating the conflict.

Decentralized, bottom-up organization of extension systems has demonstrated potential 

in enhancing the productivity of farming communities. Likewise, community-based methods 

are essential elements in successful peacebuilding. Providing the appropriate training and 

enabling technology to support decentralized delivery of agricultural and peacebuilding 

services to farmers should enable rural communities to reap harvests of both food security 

and social stability.
Notes

1. Burton Swanson and Riikka Rajalahti, “Strengthening Agricultural Extension and Advisory Systems: Procedures for 

Assessing, Transforming, and Evaluating Extension Systems” (Agriculture and Rural Development discussion paper 

45, World Bank, Washington, DC, 2010), 2–3.

2. Ibid.; Jock Anderson, Gershon Feder, and Sushma Ganguly, “The Rise and Fall of Training and Visit Extension: An 

Asian Mini-Drama with an African Epilogue” (World Bank Policy Research working paper 3928, Washington, DC, 

2006), 21–22.

3. Stephen Akroyd and Lawrence Smith, Review of Public Spending to Agriculture: A Joint Study (Washington, DC: 

DFID/World Bank, 2007), 3.

4. World Bank, Agriculture for Development: World Bank Report 2008 (Washington, DC: International Bank for 

Reconstruction and Development/World Bank, 2009), 6–8. 

5. World Bank, Conflict, Security and Development: World Bank Report 2011 (Washington, DC: International Bank for 

Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, 2011), 1.

6. Ibid., 5.

7. Ibid., 7.

8. Jake Lynch and Annabelle McGoldrick, Peace Journalism (Gloucestershire: Hawthorn Press, 2005), 197–211; 

Johan Galtung and Jake Lynch, Reporting Conflict: New Directions in Peace Journalism (St. Lucia: University 

of Queensland Press, 2010), 75–80; Wilhelm Kempf, “Peace Journalism: A Tightrope Walk Between Advocacy 

Journalism and Constructive Conflict Coverage,” Conflict & Communication Online 6, no. 2 (2007): 2.

9. Mary Kamau, director of agricultural extension and training, Kenya Ministry of Agriculture, personal 

communication, June 6, 2012; James Ochang Ojoch, director general, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Jonglei 

State, Republic of South Sudan, personal communication, June 19, 2012.

10. Sanat Mishra and Burton Swanson, “Extension’s Role in Organizing Producer Groups: A Case Study from Orissa, 

India,” Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting, Association for International Agricultural and Extension Education 

(AIAEE) (May 24–28, 2009): 331–42, www.aiaee.org/attachments/article/631/331.pdf. India has six hundred 

and forty administrative districts. For comparison, despite substantial variation, the average area is about two 

thousand square miles, about the same size as Rhode Island.

11. Burton Swanson, K. M. Singh, and R. N. Reddy, “A Decentralized, Farmer-Led, Market-Driven Extension System: 

The ATMA Model in India” (presentation, International Food Policy Research Institute, April 8, 2008), 10–11. 

12. Mishra and Swanson, 338. 

13. E-Sourcebook, “ICT in Agriculture: Connecting Smallholders to Knowledge, Networks, and Institutions” 

(Washington, DC: World Bank), 10–12.

United States 

Institute of Peace

2301 Constitution Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20037

www.usip.org

An online edition of this and related 

reports can be found on our Web site 

(www.usip.org), together with additional 

information on the subject.