How can agricultural extension and rural advisory services support agricultural innovation to adapt to climate change in the agriculture sector?

Abstract

Because the climate has been rapidly changing and undermining the sustainability of the agriculture sector, Agricultural Extension and Rural Advisory Services (AERAS) need to rethink their contemporary roles and initiatives. Although enhancing agricultural innovation is considered a key process to increase farm income and ensure sustainability under complex climate-affected development conditions, little is known how AERAS can support the process in the said context. A broad range of literature was reviewed and a deductive coding approach was followed to analyze the literature. The findings suggested numerous transformative roles of AERAS providers supporting agricultural innovation. AERAS providers should extend their mandates and broaden their scopes by connecting and working with multiple actors and groups within and beyond the agriculture sector. They need to support interactions and learning among diversified actors to develop complementary understanding and approaches for collective action for climate change adaptation. The findings highlight the importance of enhancing innovation by AERAS providers for climate change adaptation in the agriculture sector.

Full text

Kamruzzaman et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development
Volume 1, Issue 1, 2020
1. Md Kamruzzaman, Assistant Professor, Sylhet Agricultural University, & PhD Fellow, Australian National University,
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4980-4125
2. Katherine A. Daniell, Associate Professor, Australian National University, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8433-1012
3. Ataharul Chowdhury, Assistant Professor, University of Guelph, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2432-0933
4. Steven Crimp, Research Fellow, Australian National University, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4068-573X
5. Helen James, Interim Director, Institute for Integrated Research on Disaster Risk Science, Australian National University,
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7169-7691
48
How Can Agricultural Extension and Rural Advisory Services
Support Innovation to Adapt to Climate Change in the
Agriculture Sector?
M. Kamruzzaman1, K.A. Daniell2, A. Chowdhury3, S. Crimp4, H. James5
Abstract
Because the climate has been rapidly changing and undermining the sustainability of the agriculture
sector, Agricultural Extension and Rural Advisory Services (AERAS) need to rethink their
contemporary roles and initiatives. Although enhancing agricultural innovation is considered a key
process to increase farm income and ensure sustainability under complex climate-affected
development conditions, little is known how AERAS can support the process in the said context. A
broad range of literature was reviewed and a deductive coding approach was followed to analyze the
literature. The findings suggested numerous transformative roles of AERAS providers supporting
agricultural innovation. AERAS providers should extend their mandates and broaden their scopes by
connecting and working with multiple actors and groups within and beyond the agriculture sector.
They need to support interactions and learning among diversified actors to develop complementary
understanding and approaches for collective action for climate change adaptation. The findings
highlight the importance of enhancing innovation by AERAS providers for climate change adaptation
in the agriculture sector.
Keywords
Agricultural extension service, agricultural innovation, climate change, extension organization,
transformational roles

Kamruzzaman et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i1.9 49
Introduction and Problem Statement
The agriculture sector has been considered extremely vulnerable to climate change with
impacts felt across a large number of agricultural land uses (Anita, Dominic, & Neil, 2010). The
primary roles of agricultural extension and rural advisory services (AERAS) have long been
recognized as enhancing agricultural development and improving rural livelihoods for both high
and low-income countries (Anderson, 2007). In most literature, the terms extension service
and advisory service have been used interchangeably, although some literature has used
advisory service to highlight the tasks associated with the facilitation of joint learning and
action (Faure, Desjeux, & Gasselin, 2012; Faure et al., 2013). In this article, the term AERAS was
used to capture a more comprehensive understanding of roles of service providers and
conceptualized as “all the institutions from different sectors that facilitate farmers’ access to
knowledge, information, and technologies; their interaction with markets, research, and
education; and the development of technical, organisational, and management skills and
practices” (Davis & Sulaiman, 2016, p. 1).
The traditional AERAS methods and tools have achieved limited success in tackling the climate-
related challenges in farming (Christoplos, 2010; Selvaraju, 2012). AERAS agencies often do not
consider fundamental changes to their conventional strategies and initiatives, and focus on
production efficiency, which has been shown to have limited effectiveness in increasing
incomes and improving livelihoods (Stål & Bonnedahl, 2015). As a consequence, a call has
emerged to re-think and revise the current AERAS agendas and strategies (Mustapha,
Undiandeye, & Gwary, 2012; Ozor & Cynthia, 2011). In the context of climate change,
enhancing agricultural innovation is likely to be a way to ensure profitable farming and develop
the agriculture sector in sustainable ways (Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO], 2018;
World Bank, 2012). Although AERAS providers serving as intermediaries and knowledge
brokers might fill a significant support role for agricultural innovations to deal with complex
issues in general (Rajalahti, Janssen, & Pehu, 2008), little or only anecdotal evidence exists on
how AERAS providers can enhance agricultural innovation for adapting to climate change.
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework
Climate change is considered a complex problem, having several interrelated drivers and issues
(Mahmoudi & Knierim, 2015). It directly affects certain related sectors, such as agriculture,
fishery, and forestry (FAO, 2007). Increasingly, debates are occurring among academic scholars,
practitioners, and policymakers about the speed and scale of climate change effects in the
agriculture sector (Sala, Rossi, & David, 2016). It is evident that technical inventions or
improvements in practice efficiencies do not suffice as adaptations to climate change in the
spheres of natural resource management, cropping, livestock, and forestry. Instead, climate
change adaptation should be considered in the light of adjustments of the policy process and
institutional systems, which administer crop production, value chains, and consumption
strategies (Neufeldt et al., 2015). Successful adaptation to climate change seeks
comprehensible sets of technical and institutional initiatives (Leeuwis, Hall, van Weperen, &
Preissing, 2013). In essence, climate change adaptation in the agriculture sector calls to

Kamruzzaman et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i1.9 50
support the process of enhancing agricultural innovation (Aase, Chapagain, & Tiwari, 2013),
which is the process whereby:
“Individuals or organizations bring existing or new products, processes, and forms of
organization into social and economic use to increase effectiveness, competitiveness,
resilience to shocks or environmental sustainability, thereby contributing to food and
nutritional security, economic development, and sustainable natural resource
management” (Tropical Agriculture Platform, 2016, p. x).
The sources of innovative practices and new ideas are often invisible and primarily contained by
a particular actor (Rajalahti et al., 2008). Every actor in a system has both discursive and tacit
knowledge (Spielman, Davis, Negash, & Ayele, 2011). An individual is conscious about
discursive knowledge - any idea that can be evaluated and expressed in language.
Nevertheless, individuals are usually unaware of their tacit knowledge, which is embedded in
their practical activities, skills, practices, and experiences (Leeuwis, 2004).
The building blocks of innovation are often not accessible because they are the part of
individuals’ tacit knowledge, and those individuals may not be part of the innovation network
(Sharma, Peshin, Khar, & Ishar, 2014). Initiating new ideas, which draw on both discursive and
tacit knowledge, is a process of bringing together the perspectives of multiple actors who have
their individual theories of knowing (Ngwenya & Hagmann, 2011). For enhancing agricultural
innovation, therefore, ideas, knowledge, experiences, and creativity from a variety of actors
should be connected, integrated, as well as mobilized to ensure collective cognition (World
Bank, 2006).
To support agricultural innovation, AERAS providers need to facilitate network building, social
learning, and negotiation among relevant actors and groups (Leeuwis & Aarts, 2011). Network
building is critical to establish new relationships among people, technical devices, and natural
phenomena. Social learning is required to support individual as well as collective cognitive
changes, which may result in conflicts among stakeholders. Therefore, they have to be involved
in negotiation to resolve conflicts (Leeuwis, 2004). AERAS agencies have been considered the
engine for enhancing agricultural innovation. Given the emerging issues, including climate
change, AERAS agencies need to revisit their structures, such as managerial and operational
strategies, roles, regulations and cultures and mandates so they can play relevant facilitation
and leadership roles in supporting agricultural innovation (Rivera & Sulaiman, 2009).
In the sections that follow, the establishment of a rationale for the roles of AERAS in enhancing
agricultural innovation is explored, particularly in the context of climate change adaptation.
Purpose
Enhancing agricultural innovation can help individuals and organizations in the agriculture
sector to adapt to climate change. But no systematic research exists on what new roles,
agendas, and strategies AERAS agencies could undertake to support agricultural innovation.
Only a limited number of recent studies have discussed and recommended the roles and

Kamruzzaman et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i1.9 51
strategies of AERAS in supporting climate change adaptation. These recommendations are
mainly general in nature and based on experts’ opinions. In this study, a systematic review of
the current literature was undertaken aimed at exploring the mandates and roles of AERAS in
supporting agricultural innovation for climate change adaptation.
Methods
Secondary data was collected by searching in different digital databases, such as Google
Scholar, CAB abstract, and Scopus, during the period of March 2018 to August 2019. The
searching was bound as only publications in English from 1980 to the present were used.
Different keywords were used both separately and in combination to determine relevant
literature for analysis. The keywords included adaptation, advisory (rural) services, agricultural
extension, agricultural innovation, agricultural practices, climate change, drought, and flood.
Articles discussing agricultural practices and the roles of AERAS in adapting to climate change
were the focus and principal criteria for inclusion. Peer-reviewed journals, organizational
reports, project reports, as well as published and unpublished theses, were selected initially. In
addition, national agricultural plans and AERAS strategies of different countries were also
included.
A deductive coding of the text was performed using keywords of relevance to agricultural
innovation, such as collaboration, connecting, coordination, interaction, learning, linking,
negotiation, and networking (Bernard, 2017). Informed by Gough, Oliver and Thomas (2017),
the findings were synthesized and presented in a thematic summary. The coded descriptive
texts were read through, and specific tasks for AERAS were identified. Those tasks were
integrated and interpreted by themes, such as broadening the scope, capacity development,
interaction and learning, lobbying policy process and negotiation, performing intermediary
roles, and working with multiple actors (Yami, Vogl, & Hauser, 2009). These themes ultimately
supported understanding the processes of enhancing agricultural innovation to adapt to
climate change. In the review process, a total of 72 articles were included of which 22 were
organizational reports, and 32 were based on empirical research in different countries. In this
study, the cases and examples were used according to their significance and relevancy with the
themes of agricultural innovation.
Findings
Broadening the Scope and Working with Multiple Actors
International organizations (see Table 1) and empirical case studies (see Table 2) reported that
the current functions, operational frameworks and strategies of AERAS should be reconsidered
and revisited to ensure that agricultural activities are responsive, adaptive, and profitable in the
current and future context of climate change. As a consequence, AERAS providers should
broaden their scopes and embrace a larger, comprehensive mandate that comprises technical
and managerial support, as well as social, gender and institutional governance (Leeuwis et al.,
2013; Sala et al., 2016; Simpson & Burpee, 2014; Sulaiman, Chuluunbaatar, & Vishnu, 2018).

Kamruzzaman et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i1.9 52
The Global Alliance for Climate-Smart Agriculture (GACSA) and United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) recommended that AERAS providers should move from a
strategy of working with few actors, such as farmers, researchers, to working with multiple and
diverse actors and groups from different backgrounds with different knowledge and interests
(Sala et al., 2016; Simpson & Burpee, 2014). Research in Ethiopia found that gaps and missing
linkages existed between AERAS providers and other relevant actors while attempting to
support adaptation to climate change. Moreover, the policymakers of some AERAS agencies,
working at different scales, were in disagreement about the degree of urgency and priority of
climate change and adaptation (Abegaz & Wims, 2015). The Cooperative Extension Services of
Land Grant institutions in the United States (US) failed to coordinate efforts to identify priority
investment for climate change and agricultural activities at regional and state levels. AERAS
providers, therefore, faced challenges of dealing with diverse and often conflicting priorities of
stakeholders (Wright Morton et al., 2016). AERAS providers of Cameroon had very negligible
contact and limited connection with the farmers, which ultimately led to farmers reaching out
to other farmers to seek support and guidance for climate change adaptation (Julie, Amungwa,
& Manu, 2017). Infrequent and limited contact with stakeholders also resulted in disputed
relationships between farmers and policymakers in Zimbabwe (Huyer & Nyasimi, 2017).
The Global Alliance for Climate-Smart Agriculture (GACSA) suggested that all public AERAS
providers, serving in a particular region, should be well connected. They need to serve
collaboratively for better alignment and synchronization of climate change adaptation activities
and programs (Sala et al., 2016). AERAS agencies should link and work in partnership with
other relevant actors and groups within and beyond the agriculture sector at different scales to
allow free flow of climate change adaptation information, knowledge, understanding, and
strategies (Abegaz & Wims, 2015; Simpson & Burpee, 2014; Sulaiman et al., 2018). A study in
Zimbabwe reported a lack of connection and linkage between two sister organizations, i.e. the
Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanisation and Irrigation, Development and the Ministry of
Environment, Water and Climate who were the key players for supporting climate change
adaptation. This study highlighted the importance of institutional collaboration and
coordination among agricultural and climate-related institutions, both public and private,
including development agencies at the local, national, regional, and international levels (Huyer
& Nyasimi, 2017).
This review identified that emphasis had been placed on polices, roles, and regulations at
institutional levels to facilitate a supportive environment for AERAS providers, but they lacked
access to different resources. For instance, about 80% of AERAS providers in Ethiopia claimed
that they did not have adequate access to climate change adaptation resources, such as readily
available and user-friendly data, policies and strategies, scientific publications, up to date
information, as well as reading materials and manuals (Abegaz & Wims, 2015). AERAS
providers in Cameroon identified lack of access to information from the Ministry related to
Environment and Disaster Mitigation, leading to a deficiency in climate change engagement
activities (Julie et al., 2017).

Kamruzzaman et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i1.9 53
Table 1
The Roles of AERAS Providers to Enhance Agricultural Innovation to Adapt to Climate Change: Insights from International Organizations
Broad Roles
Specific Tasks
Number
of Cases
Organizations
Example of Key
Sources
Broadening the
scope, working
with multiple and
diverse actors
Reconsidering the operational frameworks, strategies,
broadening the mandates, and functions
7
FAO, GACSA & USAID
(Sala et al., 2016;
Simpson & Burpee, 2014;
Suleiman et al., 2018)
Creating alignment and developing collaboration among
public AERAS providers
1
GACSA
(Sala et al., 2016)
Partnering with relevant actors and groups of the agriculture
sector at appropriate scales
2
USAID & FAO
(Simpson & Burpee,
2014; Sulaiman et al.,
2018)
Dealing with multiple and diverse actors beyond the
agriculture sector
2
FAO & GACSA
(Leeuwis et al., 2013;
Sala et al., 2016)
Implementing policies, programs, including both agricultural
and fund, policy-related stakeholders
1
IFPRI
(Davis, 2009)
Performing
intermediary roles
and supporting
learning
Connecting domestic and international markets
1
GACSA
(Sala et al., 2016)
Linking farmers with diverse actors
1
GACSA
(Sala et al., 2016)
Organizing participation and facilitating interaction and
social learning among diverse actors and communities
2
FAO
(Leeuwis et al., 2013)
Practicing technological management (e.g. interactive design
& experimentation; trying out new practices & adaptive
measures)
7
FAO, GFRAS, IFPRI,
USAID
(Hachigonta, 2016; Sala
et al., 2016; Simpson,
2016)
Lobbying policy
processes
Performing lobby and advocacy communication
2
FAO & GACSA
(Sala et al., 2016)
Seeking out influencing the enabling environment and
developing supportive policies
2
FAO & USAID
(Simpson & Burpee,
2014; Sulaiman et al.,
2018)
Capacity
development of
AERAS providers
Deepening and broadening knowledge on soft skills related
to co-learning, communication, facilitation, networking, and
dealing with diverse groups; revising training curricula
4
FAO, GACSA, IFPRI,
& USAID
(Davis, 2009; Sala et al.,
2016; Simpson & Burpee,
2014; Sulaiman, 2017)
Note. FAO=Food and Agriculture Organization, GACSA=Global Alliance for Climate-Smart Agriculture, GFRAS=Global Forum for Rural
Advisory Services, IFPRI= International Food Policy Research Institute, USAID= United States Agency for International Development

Kamruzzaman et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i1.9 54
Performing Intermediary Roles and Supporting Interactions
The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) identified that AERAS agencies should provide a
broader sense of intermediary roles and support participation and interaction among multiple
actors (Leeuwis et al., 2013). AERAS providers need to link domestic market products with
international trading markets and consumers (Sala et al., 2016). They should connect farmers
with diverse actors, including markets, as well as communities, agencies, and institutions to
maximize the benefits of information and knowledge (Hachigonta, 2016; Huyer & Nyasimi,
2017; Sala et al., 2016). AERAS providers need to facilitate diversified stakeholders to interact
and share their knowledge and priorities and negotiate to learn from one another to achieve a
better and complementary understanding of climate change impacts and adaptation options
(Mahmoudi & Knierim, 2015; Sala et al., 2016). The USAID recommended that AERAS providers
should take advantage of modern and advanced Information and Communication Technologies
(ICTs) to link different actors, to support communication and interaction, and to develop a
feeling of interdependence and synergy in collective action (Simpson & Burpee, 2014).
Table 2
The Roles of AERAS Providers to Enhance Agricultural Innovation to Adapt to Climate Change:
Insights from Empirical Studies in Different Countries
Broad Roles
Specific Tasks
Countries
Example of Key
Sources
Networking,
collaboration
and
co-learning
Networking & partnership development,
collaboration & coordination of AERAS
activities, information & knowledge
sharing, collaborative research, co-
learning with multiple & diverse actors
Ethiopia, India,
Malawi ,
Namibia, South
Africa, US,
Zimbabwe
(Abegaz & Wims,
2015; Huyer &
Nyasimi, 2017;
Mkisi, 2014)
Access of AERAS providers to resources
(e.g. funding, policies & strategies,
reading materials, scientific publications,
updated information & user friendly data)
Cameroon,
Ethiopia, Kenya,
US
(Abegaz & Wims,
2015; Ifejika
Speranza, Kiteme,
& Opondo, 2009;
Julie et al., 2017)
Lobbying/
Advocating
Providing feedback & supporting policy
processes
Nigeria,
Zimbabwe
(Huyer & Nyasimi,
2017; Ozor &
Cynthia, 2011)
Capacity
development
of AERAS
providers
Capacity development of AERAS
providers on technical & functional
knowledge (e.g. arranging training,
seminars, and workshops; financial
investments; updating course curricula)
Cameroon,
Ethiopia, India,
Malawi, Namibia,
Nigeria, Pakistan,
South Africa, US,
Zimbabwe
(Afful, 2016;
Diehl et al., 2015;
Mkisi, 2014;
Ogunbameru,
Mustapha &
Idrisa, 2013)
To formulate adaptation strategies and develop technological innovation, GACSA, Global Forum
for Rural Advisory Services (GFRAS), and USAID recommended setting out interactive design

Kamruzzaman et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i1.9 55
principles and co-designed experimentation, as well as promotion of farmer-to-farmer
extension (Davis, 2009; Hachigonta, 2016; Sala et al., 2016; Simpson, 2016). AERAS providers of
South Africa promoted conservation agriculture as a technological innovation but failed to
achieve desired outcomes in terms of increasing yields and ensuring sustainability. Therefore,
AERAS providers were suggested to participate in adaptive research on conservation agriculture
management packages with farmers and scientists (Afful, 2016). Smallholder farmers of
Malawi identified that AERAS providers should strengthen farmers’ linkage with research
institutions to draw support for on-farm adaptive research and develop the best risk
management practices in different farming systems (Mkisi, 2014).
Lobbying and Negotiation
This literature review highlighted that AERAS providers should have strong linkage and effective
communication with the policy process to positively influence the enabling environment and
develop supportive policies, as well as funding opportunities for climate change adaptation
(Leeuwis et al., 2013, Simpson & Burpee, 2014; Sulaiman et al., 2018). Farmers in Nigeria
perceived that AERAS providers were knowledgeable about the local effects of climate change
on the agriculture sector because they lived and worked with farmers in the rural areas. AERAS
providers, therefore, could more effectively communicate on local climate change effects to
their higher authorities during regular official meetings. Thus, the government and other
agencies were aware and could develop plans and policies, allocate funding, and implement
programs to address the risks and challenges of climate change (Ozor & Cynthia, 2011).
Likewise, the GACSA suggested that AERAS providers should advocate and raise awareness with
decision-makers about the importance of funding for climate change adaptation in the
agriculture sector (Sala et al., 2016). AERAS providers need to invite and engage with funding-
and policy-related stakeholders while implementing different agricultural policies and programs
in the field (Davis, 2009).
Capacity Development of AERAS Providers as an Underlying Condition
AERAS providers should develop new capacities to explicitly support innovation in the
agriculture sector to adapt to climate change (Sala et al., 2016). Researchers in Malawi
recommended that AERAS agencies should obtain sufficient investment for human resource
development and capacity building (Mkisi, 2014). Evidence from Nigeria highlighted the need
to develop teaching and training materials addressing the risks and challenges of climate
change for AERAS students and providers, respectively (Ogunbameru et al., 2013).
A case study in the US recommended that AERAS providers should receive training to
understand both management- and technology-related adaptation strategies, engage in
conversations with stakeholders, and participate in co-production of climate change
adaptation-related knowledge and strategy (Diehl et al., 2015). In this vein, the Cameroon case
reported that AERAS providers need to be provided with seminars and workshops (Julie et al.,
2017). According to the FAO, the current knowledge and efficiencies of AERAS providers should
be deepened and broadened mostly on soft skills, such as co-learning, communication,
facilitation, and networking with diverse groups at different scales (Davis, 2009; Sulaiman,
2017).

Kamruzzaman et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i1.9 56
Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations
To enhance innovation for adapting to climate change in the agriculture sector, AERAS
providers need to embrace new organizational mandates, agendas, roles, and strategies. They
should broaden their scopes by working with multiple actors and groups both within and
beyond the agriculture sector. AERAS providers need to perform intermediary roles and
support interaction and learning among the stakeholders to develop complementary
understanding of climate change adaptation and approaches for collective action. Seeking
support in terms of favorable rules, regulations, and required financial resources from the
policy processes are other important tasks on which AERAS providers should focus.
AERAS agencies will likely face challenges in embracing the transformational roles to support
innovation for climate change adaptation in the agriculture sector. In this vein, the political
context, and the organizational structure and worldviews of AERAS providers are among the
many challenges that may need consideration. The plans and priorities of governments often
influence the focus and ways of implementing AERAS programs (Berhanu & Poulton, 2014).
Governments require support from the AERAS providers to execute different public policies and
interests (Mahon, Farrell, & McDonagh, 2010), which ultimately might deviate AERAS agencies
from their principal modes of action (Diesel & Miná Dias, 2016).
Conducting organizational reforms of AERAS agencies to embrace agricultural innovation
approaches is challenging, especially in developing countries (Hounkonnou et al., 2012; Rivera
& Sulaiman, 2009). The administration and policy-making system of AERAS agencies might be
unwilling to reconsider their long-term roles and practices to embrace agricultural innovation
approaches (Chowdhury, Odame, & Leeuwis, 2014). AERAS agencies have shown resistance to
consider deep-rooted reform (Islam, Gray, Reid, & Kemp, 2011). Change in organizational
strategies faces political, social, and contextual complexities (Islam et al., 2011). Moreover,
gaps often exist between the organizational mandates or vision and the AERAS providers’
worldviews (Landini, 2015). In addition, intra- and inter-organizational differences of innovation
perception and mindsets are found among AERAS providers. In the same AERAS agency, some
individuals might have mindsets largely dominated by top-down approaches emphasizing
specialists’ knowledge dissemination whereas others might prefer to adopt dialogical
approaches and horizontal interaction of knowledge sharing and learning (Landini, 2016).
Overall, a lack of evidence exists from the reviewed literature on how to develop the capacities
of AERAS providers to enhance agricultural innovation in the context of climate change. The
Tropical Agriculture Platform (2016) proposes four aspects of capacity development, - capacity
to navigate complexity, collaborate, reflect and learn, engage in strategic and political
processes - to ensure actors’ effective involvement in enhancing agricultural innovation in
general. These capacities might provide insight on formulating ways to develop functional
capacities of AERAS providers to support agricultural innovation for climate change adaptation.
However, further research is needed to better understand the means and strategies for
developing the capacities of AERAS providers.

Kamruzzaman et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i1.9 57
The AERAS professionals, providers, and agencies serving in regions more prone to climate
change and working at different scales, could utilize these research insights to better develop
strategies for ensuring sustainability in the agriculture sector. However, these findings should
not be used as a one-size-fits-all approach. Depending on the local, national, and political
contexts, as well as financial and organizational support, AERAS providers are encouraged to
reconsider their roles and formulate new ways to enhance agricultural innovation for climate
change adaptation in their localities.
Acknowledgements
The Higher Degree by Research (HDR) fee merit scholarship and HDR research scholarship of the
Australian National University are acknowledged for supporting the Doctor of Philosophy study
of the first author.
References
Aase, T. H., Chapagain, P. S., & Tiwari, P. C. (2013). Innovation as an expression of adaptive
capacity to change in Himalayan farming. Mountain Research and Development, 33(1),
4-11. https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-12-00025.1
Abegaz, D. M., & Wims, P. (2015). Extension agents' awareness of climate change in
Ethiopia. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 21(5), 479-495.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2014.946936
Afful, D. B. (2016). Public extension agents’ need for new competencies: Evidence from a
climate variability study in Limpopo province, South Africa. South African Journal of
Agricultural Extension, 44(2), 59-70. Retrieved from
https://www.ajol.info/index.php/sajae/article/view/149127
Anderson, J. R. (2007). Agricultural advisory services: Background paper for the world
development report 2008. Retrieved from the World Bank website:
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/490981468338348743/pdf/413540Anders
on1AdvisoryServices01PUBLIC1.pdf
Anita, W., Dominic, M., & Neil, A. (2010). Climate change and agriculture: Impacts, adaptation
and mitigation. Paris, France: The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) publishing.
Berhanu, K., & Poulton, C. (2014). The political economy of agricultural extension policy in
Ethiopia: Economic growth and political control. Development Policy Review, 32(s2),
s197-s213. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12082
Bernard, H. R. (2017). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative
approaches (6th ed.). Lantham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Kamruzzaman et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i1.9 58
Chowdhury, A. H., Odame, H. H., Leeuwis, C. (2014). Transforming the roles of a public
extension agency to strengthen innovation: Lessons from the national agricultural
extension project in Bangladesh. The Journal of Agricultural Education and
Extension, 20(1), 7-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2013.803990
Christoplos, I. (2010). Mobilizing the potential of rural and agricultural extension. Retrieved
from Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations website:
http://www.fao.org/3/i1444e/i1444e00.htm
Davis, K. E. (2009). Agriculture and climate change: An agenda for negotiation in Copenhagen.
The important role of extension systems (IFPRI Focus 16 Brief 11). Retrieved from
Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) website:
http://www.asb.cgiar.org/PDFwebdocs/focus16_11.pdf
Davis, K., & Sulaiman, V. R. (2016). Note 0: Overview of extension philosophies and methods.
GFRAS good practice notes for extension and advisory services. Retrieved from Global
Forum for Rural Advisory Services (GFRAS) website: https://www.g-fras.org/en/good-
practice-notes/0-overview-of-extension-philosophies-and-methods.html
Diehl, D. C., Galindo-Gonzalez, S., Dourte, D. R., Sloan, N. L., Bartels, W. L., Furman, C., &
Fraisse, C. W. (2015). Toward engagement in climate training: Findings from interviews
with agricultural extension professionals. Journal of Rural Social Sciences, 30(1), 25-50.
Retrieved from
http://journalofruralsocialsciences.org/pages/Articles/JRSS%202015%2030/1/JRSS%202
015%2030%201%2025-50.pdf
Diesel, V., & Miná Dias, M. (2016). The Brazilian experience with agroecological extension: A
critical analysis of reform in a pluralistic extension system. The Journal of Agricultural
Education and Extension, 22(5), 415-433.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2016.1227058
Faure, G., Desjeux, Y., & Gasselin, P. (2012). New challenges in agricultural advisory services
from a research perspective: A literature review, synthesis and research agenda. The
Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 18(5), 461-492.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2012.707063
Faure, G., Penot, E., Rakotondravelo, J. C., Ramahatoraka, H. A., Dugué, P., & Toillier, A. (2013).
Which advisory system to support innovation in conservation agriculture? The case of
Madagascar's Lake Alaotra. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 19(3),
257-270. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2013.782169

Kamruzzaman et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i1.9 59
Food and Agriculture Organization. (2007). Adaptation to climate change in agriculture, forestry
and fisheries: perspective, framework and priorities. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/3/a-au030e.pdf
Food and Agriculture Organization. (2018). FAO’s work on agricultural innovation: Sowing the
seeds of transformation to achieve the SDGs. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/3/CA2460EN/ca2460en.pdf
Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hachigonta, S. (2016). Module 13: Risk mitigation and adaptation in extension. The new
extensionist learning kit. Retrieved from Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services
(GFRAS) website: https://www.g-fras.org/en/knowledge/new-extensionist-learning-kit-
nelk.html
Hounkonnou, D., Kossou, D., Kuyper, T. W., Leeuwis, C., Nederlof, E. S., Röling, N., & van Huis, A.
(2012). An innovation systems approach to institutional change: Smallholder
development in West Africa. Agricultural Systems, 108, 74-83.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2012.01.007
Huyer, S., & Nyasimi, M. (2017). Climate-smart agriculture manual for agriculture education in
Zimbabwe. Retrieved from Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research
(CGIAR) website: https://ccafs.cgiar.org/publications/climate-smart-agriculture-manual-
agriculture-education-zimbabwe
Ifejika Speranza, C., Kiteme, B., & Opondo, M. (2009). Adapting public agricultural extension
services to climate change: Insights from Kenya. Retrieved from BORIS database:
https://boris.unibe.ch/69717/1/AC2009-0149.pdf
Islam, M. M., Gray, D., Reid, J., & Kemp, P. (2011). Developing sustainable farmer-led extension
groups: Lessons from a Bangladeshi case study. The Journal of Agricultural Education
and Extension, 17(5), 425-443. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2011.596658
Julie, D. T., Amungwa, F. A., & Manu, I. (2017). Role of agricultural extension in climate change
adaptation in Cameroon. International Journal of Horticulture, Agriculture and Food
science (IJHAF), 1(3), 21-26. https://doi.org/10.22161/ijhaf.1.3.5
Landini, F. (2015). Different Argentine rural extensionists' mindsets and their practical
implications. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 21(3), 219-234.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2014.927375

Kamruzzaman et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i1.9 60
Landini, F. (2016). Unfolding the knowledge and power dynamics of the ‘farmers–rural
extensionists’ interface in north-eastern Argentina. The Journal of Agricultural Education
and Extension, 22(5), 399-413. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2016.1227050
Leeuwis, C. (2004). Communication for rural innovation: Rethinking agricultural extension.
Oxford, England: Blackwell Science Incorporation.
Leeuwis, C., & Aarts, N. (2011). Rethinking communication in innovation processes: Creating
space for change in complex systems. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension,
17(1), 21-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2011.536344
Leeuwis, C., Hall, A., van Weperen, W., & Preissing, J. (2013). Facing the challenges of climate
change and food security: The role of research, extension and communication for
development. Retrieved from Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
website: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3334e.pdf
Mahmoudi, H., & Knierim, A. (2015). Risk communication for farmers' adaptation to climate
change: A new task for agricultural advisory services. International Journal of
Performability Engineering, 11(6), 533-547. Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/476f/5d01a3b9b822327b26eca9b0b0502a3d4234.pdf
Mahon, M., Farrell, M., & McDonagh, J. (2010). Power, positionality and the view from within:
Agricultural advisers' roles in implementing participatory extension programmes in the
Republic of Ireland. Sociologia Ruralis, 50(2), 104-120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9523.2010.00505.x
Mkisi, R. B. (2014). The role of agricultural extension in smallholder farmer adaptation to climate
change in Blantyre district, Malawi (MS dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette,
Indiana). Retrieved from https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/dissertations/AAI1585361/
Mustapha, S., Undiandeye, U., & Gwary, M. (2012). The role of extension in agricultural adaptation
to climate change in the Sahelian zone of Nigeria. Journal of Environment and Earth
Science, 2(6), 48-58. Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.933.5124&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Neufeldt, H., Negra, C., Hancock, J., Foster, K., Nayak, D., & Singh, P. (2015). Scaling up climate-
smart agriculture: Lessons learned from South Asia and pathways for success. Retrieved
from World Agroforestry Centre website:
http://www.worldagroforestry.org/downloads/Publications/PDFS/WP15720.pdf
Ngwenya, H., & Hagmann, J. (2011). Making innovation systems work in practice: Experiences in
integrating innovation, social learning and knowledge in innovation platforms.
Knowledge Management for Development Journal, 7(1), 109-124.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19474199.2011.593867

Kamruzzaman et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i1.9 61
Ogunbameru, B., Mustapha, S., & Idrisa, Y. (2013). Capacity building for climate change
adaptation: Modules for agricultural extension curriculum development. Russian Journal
of Agricultural and Socio-Economic Sciences, 14(2), 61-66. Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2d1d/94b53e9cf4f5d8ce9df5d8db2936cd4dedd3.pdf
Ozor, N., & Cynthia, N. (2011). The role of extension in agricultural adaptation to climate
change in Enugu state, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural
Development, 3(3), 42-50. Retrieved from
http://www.academicjournals.org/app/webroot/article/article1379426712_Ozor%20an
d%20Nnaji.pdf
Rajalahti, R., Janssen, W., & Pehu, E. (2008). Agricultural innovation systems: From diagnostics
toward operational practices. Retrieved from the World Bank website: http://www-
wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2008/05/02/000334
955_20080502052523/Rendered/PDF/434350NWP0ARDD1Box0327368B01PUBLIC1.pdf
Rivera, W. M., & Sulaiman, V. R. (2009). Extension: Object of reform, engine for
innovation. Outlook on Agriculture, 38(3), 267-273.
https://doi.org/10.5367/000000009789396810
Sala, S., Rossi, F., & David, S. (2016). Supporting agricultural extension towards climate-smart
agriculture: An overview of existing tools. Compendium climate-smart agriculture &
extension. Retrieved from Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
website: http://www.fao.org/3/a-bl361e.pdf
Selvaraju, R. (2012). Climate risk assessment and management in agriculture. In A. Meybeck, J.
Lankoski, S. Redfern, N. Azzu, & V. Gitz (Eds.), Building resilience for adaptation to
climate change in the agriculture sector. Proceedings of a Joint FAO/OECD Workshop
(pp. 71-90). Rome, Italy.
Sharma, R., Peshin, R., Khar, S., & Ishar, A. K. (2014). Agriculture innovation system approach
for sustainable agriculture development: A review. Agro Economist, 1(1), 1-7. Retrieved
from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/30b4/4d1c33f708645452e6615e21ba6c01da1802.pdf
Simpson, B. M. (2016). Pocket guide 1: Extension practice for agricultural adaptation. Preparing
smallholder farm families to adapt to climate change. Retrieved from Catholic Relief
Services (CRS) website: https://www.crs.org/sites/default/files/tools-research/pocket-
guide-1.pdf
Simpson, B. M., & Burpee, C. G. (2014). Adaptation under the “new normal” of climate change:
The future of agricultural extension and advisory services. Retrieved from AGRILINKS
website:

Kamruzzaman et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i1.9 62
https://agrilinks.org/sites/default/files/resource/files/MEAS%20Discussion%20Paper%2
03%20-%20Climate%20Change%20and%20EAS%20-%202014_01_31.pdf
Spielman, D. J., Davis, K., Negash, M., & Ayele, G. (2011). Rural innovation systems and
networks: Findings from a study of Ethiopian smallholders. Agriculture and Human
Values, 28(2), 195-212. Retrieved from
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10460-010-9273-y
Stål, H. I., & Bonnedahl, K. J. (2015). Provision of climate advice as a mechanism for
environmental governance in Swedish agriculture. Environmental Policy and
Governance, 25(5), 356-371. https://doi.org10.1002/eet.1677
Sulaiman, R. V. (2017). Enabling advisory services for climate-smart agriculture: Key elements to
foster farmers' adoption of CSA practices. Policy brief enabling advisory services for CSA.
Retrieved from Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations website:
http://www.fao.org/3/a-bs940e.pdf
Sulaiman, R. V., Chuluunbaatar, D., & Vishnu, S. (2018). Upscaling climate smart agriculture:
Lessons for extension and advisory services. Retrieved from Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations website:
http://www.fao.org/uploads/media/Climate_Smart_Agriculture_draft08.pdf
Tropical Agriculture Platform. (2016). Common framework on capacity development for
agricultural innovation systems: Guidance note on operationalization. Wallingford,
England: Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International (CABI).
World Bank. (2006). Enhancing agricultural innovation: How to go beyond the strengthening of
research systems. Retrieved from
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/864351468325269468/pdf/379000Enhan
cin101OFFICIAL0USE0ONLY1.pdf
World Bank. (2012). Agricultural innovation systems: An investment sourcebook. Retrieved from
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/2247
Wright Morton, L., Prokopy, L. S., Arbuckle, J. G., Ingels, C., Thelen, M., Bellm, R., … Widhalm,
M. (2016). Climate change and agricultural extension: Building capacity for land grant
extension services to address the agricultural impacts of climate change and the
adaptive management needs of agricultural stakeholders. Retrieved from the Extension
Store, Extension and Outreach, Iowa State University website:
https://store.extension.iastate.edu/product/14504
Yami, M., Vogl, C., & Hausera, M. (2009). Comparing the effectiveness of informal and formal
institutions in sustainable common pool resources management in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Conservation and Society 7(3), 153-164. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.64731