WG 2 – An attempt to conclude …

1. There were 16 paper presentations in group 2, representing research work on extension issues developed in about 20 countries.
2. Most papers addressed content related matters, as well as other questions concerning agricultural and rural development policies and/or extension methods and approaches. In general, we can say that it was impossible to separate the content aspects of extension work, from the context, policies, processes and other connected dimensions.
3. The context of extension work, global, national or more specific, deserved a particular attention. It was stressed that it tends to be more and more competitive, uncertain and risky. It was quite clear that the situations addressed in the papers are quite diverse, and that there are new challenges for agriculture and rural development in general and extension in particular, including the climatic changes and the rising hunger and poverty.
4. A first and immediate question when debating the content of extension work had to do with the definition of the agenda, that is: Who defines and manages the extension agenda? Who should define it? Who establishes what is the content of extension work? These questions are obviously related to the question of system governance and functioning, as well as with power issues. The papers illustrated situations of flexible and inclusive systems, open for participation and negotiation, as well as others more closed or centralized, in which agenda setting is basically a top-down exercise.
5. There are several emergent content issues in the global extension agenda. In the case of farming and rural development in general, the papers suggest the growing importance of sustainable agriculture and sustainable food systems, markets (new demands, direct marketing, collective action, chain management, vertical integration, …), rural-urban relationships and dynamics, environment and natural resources, entrepreneurship education, personal and social skills (social capital building, empowerment, networking, …), health and safety.
6. In the case of extension agents’ training, several challenges were identified, namely: changing roles (from technology transfer to learning facilitator, innovation broker, holistic resource manager, knowledge manager, …); changing focus (from production to resource management, from individuals to territories, from farmers to rural entrepreneurs, …); a new attention to ethical questions (for which development are they striving for? What is the appropriate content? Is neutrality possible or desirable?); acquisition of new skills, including those related to personal and social development (reflexivity and critical thinking, systems thinking, entrepreneurial thinking), and the capacity to cross boundaries and to see the world (including farmers and farming) in a different way.
7. Still in relation to extension agents, the questions of professional identity were raised and subject of discussion. The profession is changing and it seems that the identity of agronomists and extension agents in general tends to be weaker. The identity issue, together with the challenges identified in the previous point, pose many implications for education and training: moving from a strict technological profile; addressing epistemological and ontological questions; promoting an holistic view. Universities have a critical role and should also provide lifelong learning opportunities to new and older extension workers.
8. Content quality was also an important question of debate. In fact, it is clear that the number of information and knowledge sources is expanding, that there are diverse value systems shaping and evaluating extension content, and that there are belief, acceptance and relevance issues involved. Content negotiation and education (helping to interpret, combine and recombine information and build knowledge) are critical aspects.
9. Finally, but very important, the issue of extension funding was also debate: Who should pay for what content? What is of public and private interest? For instance, should direct marketing of agricultural and agri-food products be addressed by public extension services? The positions were diverse, suggesting that this is a matter for research and debate in future seminars.

Artur Cristóvão, with the support of Ian Houseman and Jenny Hockert and the contribution of all participants