
































Microsoft Word - 9-Manuscript-221-6-11-20200213.docx


Kamruzzaman et al.   Advancements in Agricultural Development 

Volume 1, Issue 1, 2020 

  agdevresearch.org 

1. Md Kamruzzaman, Assistant Professor, Sylhet Agricultural University/ PhD Fellow, Australian National University 

Sylhet-3100, Bangladesh/ ACT 2601, Australia 

kamruzzamanmd.aext@sau.ac.bd or md.kamruzzaman@anu.edu.au; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4980-4125  

2. Katherine A. Daniell, Associate Professor, Australian National University 

ANU College of Science, Linnaeus Way, The Australian National University, Acton, ACT 2601, Australia 

katherine.daniell@anu.edu.au, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8433-1012 

3. Ataharul Chowdhury, Assistant Professor, University of Guelph 

50 Stone Road East, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada 

ataharul.chowdhury@uoguelph.ca, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2432-0933 

4. Steven Crimp, Research Fellow, Australian National University 

ANU College of Science, Building 141, Linnaeus Way, The Australian National University, Acton, ACT 2601, Australia 

steven.crimp@anu.edu.au, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4068-573X 

5. Helen James, Interim Director, Institute for Integrated Research on Disaster Risk Science, Australian National University 

ANU Research School of Earth Sciences, 142 Mills Road, The Australian National University, Acton, ACT 2601, Australia 

helen.james@anu.edu.au, 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: 
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: 
https://agrilinks.org/sites/default/files/resource/files/MEAS%20Discussion%20Paper%2
03%20-%20Climate%20Change%20and%20EAS%20-%202014_01_31.pdf  

 



Kamruzzaman et al.   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i1.9   62 
 

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  

 
© 2020 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 


