ACIAR Project ASEM/2012/063

Improving the Methods and Impacts of Agricultural Extension in

Conflict Areas of Mindanao, Philippines

Working Paper No. 1

Agricultural extension in areas currently affected by
conflict, with an emphasis on Mindanao, Philippines:
literature review
Kenneth Menz

December, 2013

The Australian Centre for International Agricultural (ACIAR) project ASEM/2012/063

Improving the methods and impacts of agricultural extension in conflict areas of
Mindanao, Philippines is concerned with developing an improved model for agricultural
extension in conflict areas of Mindanao.
The Project is collaborative between the RMIT University, Melbourne Australia and three
Filipino institutions. Landcare Foundation of the Philippines Inc (LFPI) will be the primary
operational partner and will manage field staff at the three project case study sites. LFPI is
the agency primarily responsible for the promotion of the Landcare approach in the
Philippines, and is a respected and successful implementer of livelihood initiatives in
conflict areas of Mindanao. The University of the Philippines Mindanao will augment LFPI
with the provision of social research expertise, and the University of the Philippines Los
Baos are providing economic and livelihood research expertise.

Most of the written project output will appear in this Project Working Paper Series. Some
papers will be revised following their appearance in this Series. Project publications are
also available online at https://sites.google.com/site/improvedextensionproject/.

The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily
represent those of the project institutions or its sponsors. This publication may be
reproduced without the permission of, but with acknowledgement to, ASEM/2012/063
Project.

Agricultural extension in areas currently affected by conflict, with an

emphasis on Mindanao, Philippines: literature review
Kenneth Menz
Introduction
A recently commenced project based at RMIT University, Melbourne and funded by the
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR project identifier:
ASEM/2012/063) has the aim and objectives listed below. This literature review was
undertaken to see whether there are conceptual or practical pointers in the literature which
would facilitate the achievement of the stated aim and objectives.
Project aim: The aim of the project is to develop an improved model for agricultural
extension in conflict areas of Mindanao.
Project objectives:
1.

Determine the livelihood impacts of conflict on agricultural communities and

extension services in case study conflict-affected areas.

2.

Implement a pilot program of improved extension and livelihood innovations,

making use of principles and methods largely derived from previous ACIAR
projects.

3.

Analyse the impacts of the pilot extension and livelihood innovation program.

4.

Engage more broadly with relevant conflict area extension and other agencies
outside of the case study areas to communicate project methodologies and
findings.

There is an extensive literature on agricultural extension, and quite significant literature both
on community-based development in conflict areas,1 and agricultural extension in post-conflict
situations. However, little literature was found explicitly referring to agricultural extension in
areas actively affected by conflict. Nevertheless, certain models of agricultural extension have
features that are closely aligned with community-based development (see next section). In
this paper, community based development is regarded as a partial proxy for agricultural
extension.
Definitions and views on agricultural extension
Everett Rogers (1962) proposed a diffusion of innovation view whereby new agricultural
technologies were developed by scientists, transferred by extension personnel, and adopted
by farmers. In this view, extension also could provide feedback to researchers about farmer
problems. This diffusion of innovations approach (also known as the technology transfer
approach) is widely referred to as the linear model, since it assumes a linear relationship
between research, extension and farmer with organized, publicly sponsored science as the
source of innovation.
Many people continue to adhere to this linear model which sees agricultural research as the
source of all agricultural innovation (Rivera and Sulaiman, 2009). However, participatory
research methods in the 1980s forged the view that it is important to understand and
strengthen farmers own capacity to develop new knowledge and to solve problems. In the
1

Community-based development refers to a broad spectrum of development program approaches that channel the
benefits of aid directly to the community level and often prioritise participation and ownership by the community
members in program implementation

ASEM/2012/063 Working Paper

1990s, discussion on agricultural knowledge and information systems, and the importance of
group action came to the fore. Concomitantly the need for platforms for interaction to promote
innovation began to be increasingly recognized. In this scenario, the role of extension was
identified as facilitating the processes of reflective action, learning and decision
making by stakeholders. Van den Ban and Hawkins (1996) explicitly incorporated the idea
of extension assisting farmers to make better decisions and clarifying goals.
World Bank (2006) states a modern view that innovation can be seen as a process of
generating and accessing knowledge and putting it into use. Central to the process are the
interactions of different people and their ideas that shape how individuals and organizations
interact. The main focus of emerging agricultural innovation systems is on strengthening this
capacity of the different actors in agricultural development to create, diffuse and use
knowledge. This includes organizing rural producers, forging links with markets and playing a
brokering role.2 An agricultural innovation system can be defined as a network of
organisations, enterprises, and individuals focused on agricultural extension bringing new
products, new processes, and new forms of organisation into economic use, together with the
institutions and policies that affect the way different agents interact, share, access, exchange
and use knowledge (World Bank 2006). Indeed, according to Leeuwis and Van den Ban,
(2004) most of the innovations needed in present-day agriculture have collective dimensions,
that is, they require new forms of interaction, organization and agreement between multiple
actors In this sense agricultural extension has close parallels with the concept of social
capital (my words).
Agricultural extension in conflict zones
The link between development outcomes and security must be accepted (World Bank, 2011).
Insofar as agricultural extension can assist development, it can also assist with security. This
could be regarded as a secondary effect. But there can also be a primary, more direct effect.
Robertson (2012) argues that decentralized, participatory, market-driven extension systems
have been successful in augmenting farmer capabilities, and that a focus on this particular
form of development is appropriate in conflict situations, where hierarchical and rigid
structures cannot work. Furthermore, by offering access to expertise (rather than expertise
itself), agents in decentralized systems can respond quickly and effectively to varied farmer
needs. These same approaches can be used to connect farmers to the experts and
resources they need to manage conflict in their communities. Information technology can
provide the capacity to match agricultural and conflict management expertise to farmer need.
It can also improve the reach and productivity of extension agents.
Robertson (2012) made a succinct summary of the role of agricultural extension in conflict
situations. He re-affirmed the point made in the previous section about facilitated extension
whereby agents work locally with groups of farmers to identify common problems and develop
shared solutions. One consequence of this trend has been a broadening of the kinds of
knowledge that extension agents are expected to provide. Agents can thus no longer be
expert in all the material that should be communicated. A wider range of agricultural
knowledge plus information that supports the farmer as a businessperson are now essential if
the agent is to be effective. Rather than knowing the answer as experts would, extension
agents are shifting to a service model in which they work as knowledge brokers, providing
access to information. It could be argued that these comments are not explicitly related to a
conflict environment, but the point made by Robertson is that agricultural extension agents,
operating in the manner described can be de facto agents for peace building.
2

An agricultural innovation system can be defined as a network of organisations, enterprises, and individuals
focused on agricultural extension bringing new products, new processes, and new forms of organisation into
economic use, together with the institutions and policies that affect the way different agents interact, share, access,
exchange and use knowledge (World Bank 2006).

Menz, K. [WP1]

Umar (2011) argues that agricultural extension should be explicitly broadened to encompass
public issues education, and conflict management. That author feels that there are new
societal concerns that extension professionals in Nigeria (and elsewhere) should tackle. The
Umar paper suggests that incorporating public issues education would allow communities to
use public-issue conflicts as an opportunity to collaboratively explore topics, better understand
the issues, and consider alternative solutions. But managers of extension systems will likely
insist they are hard pressed to develop the competencies needed to support sustainable
growth in agriculture, let alone accept such additional responsibilities as peacebuilding
(Robertson, 2012).
As mentioned above, a main objective in this paper is to extract from the literature possible
lessons to alter, or reinforce, the approach we are planning to take in our project. Jones et al
(2002), referring to South Sudan declared that, given the constraints imposed by conflict, it is
better to build on existing systems (which they say are often surprisingly resilient in the face
of conflict) rather than impose solutions which may not be sustainable post-project. (This
may be a good strategy regardless of conflict, but it is especially important given a conflict
environment). They also urge the encouragement (via agricultural extension) of farmer
experimentation with potential new technologies, since this can occur more or less
independently of conflict). Longley et al (2006) report on how aid more broadly can best be
used to support rural livelihoods in conflict situations. Specifically, their report is concerned
with how international actors might best support the agricultural component of rural
livelihoods. In their view, disaster relief (eg food aid) is not enough in situations of chronic
conflict, and there is a need to also support livelihoods from a more ongoing perspective. This
is particularly so in the agricultural sector, where the response is often to provide seeds and
tools.
Korf and Bauer (2002) urge care to avoid excessive dependency in conflict-affected
areas. The tendency in disaster situations is to assume that systems have totally collapsed.
This may result in lengthy reliance on relief and food aid, leading to a dependency syndrome.
In turn, market opportunities may be missed and the initiative may be lost for conflict-affected
groups to take charge of their own destinies. They argue that institutional capacity building
with a strong level of community participation is a priority to ensure that services can be
managed even under constraining conditions. Therefore, amongst other things, they conclude
that partner institutions should be strengthened whilst increasing the self-help capacity of the
local population; that strong donor co-ordination is a key for long-lasting, sustainable
interventions; and there should be a balance between process and output. (In our case,
this means a balance between improved extension capacity and livelihood improvement for
farmers).
The World Bank (2005) source book on agricultural investment contains a section (Chapter
11) on Strengthening markets in areas affected by conflict. They make the same point as
Korf and Bauer about the resilience of markets. Prolonged conflict changes markets but does
not destroy them. Markets continued to function in Afghanistan and in northern Uganda in
spite of 20 years of conflict. The best approach is first to understand how markets function,
and then to work to strengthen them so that people can access food and other needs and
develop a stake in peace and stability by finding employment and earning incomes.
Additionally the World Bank argues for support for farmer organizations. By organizing
around an economic motive, groups and cooperatives have the potential to reach across the
conflict divide. By acting in economic self-interest and building trust among members, groups
and cooperatives have a stake in peace. The final World Bank pointer of relevance here is to
take account of labour availabilities and requirements. Loss of able-bodied labour (due to
conflict death or injury) limits rural households economic options. For example, the loss of
household labour (particularly the main breadwinner) usually means that less land is cultivated
and/or less labour-intensive crops are cultivated. It often will be necessary to invest in
research into research and extension of less labour-intensive crop varieties and techniques.

ASEM/2012/063 Working Paper

Echoing some of the above points in relation to extension in East Africa is another World Bank
report (Schwartz and Kampen (1992). In particular in that report, the Bank reiterates the need
to expand their footprint, field extension staff should place much greater emphasis on
providing services to groups of farmers. They suggest that the issue of gender should be
brought into the mainstream of adaptive research and extension. They also see
communication technologies improving, even in conflict zones (eg mobile phones) so farmers
will be less dependent on direct contact with extension staff for new technologies and
practices. And finally, but of special relevance to our project: farmers need to be closely
involved in selecting, supporting and evaluating extension staff.
It can be seen from the above discussion that the current view of agricultural extension (even
if not uniformly practiced on the ground) is strongly community-based. Community-Based
Approaches (CBAs) are widely perceived as offering great potential for reaching people in
fragile and conflict-affected states. In fragile environments where public service delivery is
seriously disrupted or inefficient, local or community-based organizations such as farmer
groups, parent-teachers associations, health action councils or water user groups, may
represent the only way to ensure the availability and continuity of basic services in the short
term. CBAs are also seen as having the potential to strengthen the short route of
accountability, and build local capacity through the development of local community
structures, civil society actors and social capital.
This community based approach has been put into practice as the guiding extension
philosophy in India where Agricultural Technology Management Agents have been trained to
act as brokers between the farming communities and various departments in the Indian
government, NGOs, input suppliers, and international organizations (Ferroni and Zhao
(2012)). Assisted by extension agents, farmers organized into interest groups and women into
self-help groups that focused on particular agricultural products at the village level. Over time,
as these interest groups identify what problems they faced in producing and marketing these
new high value crops, extension agents provided access to the training and funding necessary
to address those needs. Bihar, Orissa, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand are areas strongly
affected by Maoist extremism. In those areas of India, an NGO, Pradan, has been
commissioned by the Indian government to promote self-help groups. It is felt that an NGO
may find it easier to operate, encountering less resistance from the extremists, in
comparison to a government agency. Note however, Munkners (1979) literature review of
self-help groups indicating that the introduction of groups without prior assessment of genuine
local demand for these groups is a common mistake.
Relevance to Mindanao
The Mindanao Development Authority (2011) indicated that agriculture and agriculture-based
industries will continue to be the most prominent drivers of the Mindanao economy well into
the future. Therefore livelihood improvements based around agriculture (and agricultural
innovation/extension) will be vital. Against this background, and given the community based
approach intended by our project, it is appropriate to examine the success or otherwise of
community based approaches within Mindanao conflict zones. A recent report from the Asia
Foundation (2013) has undertaken this task. I draw extensively on their report in the following
paragraphs.
The Government of the Philippines has been one of the leading adopters of community-based
development in conflict-affected areas. The Governments flagship initiative for addressing
conflict, referred to as PAMANA (Payapaat Masaganang Pamyanan), includes a major
component for expanding community-based development. The second pillar of the PAMANA
strategy calls for:

Menz, K. [WP1]

Facilitating delivery of basic services at the community level through community driven
development and community livelihood interventions. This aspect shapes families and
communities by concentrating on health, education and livelihood programs.
In the Philippines, the impact of CBAs in conflict-affected areas is unclear, and recent
evidence points to a mixture of modest, positive outcomes, along with some worrying trends.
For example, a study by Arcand, Bah, and Labonne (2010) found that the introduction of a
CBA project in areas controlled by the New Peoples Army (CPP/NPA) led to an increase in
violence. However, in areas where the Moro Islamic Liberation Front is present, the same
project led to a reduction in violent incidents.
As mentioned earlier, agricultural extension, when based around social capital and
participatory concepts (see previous sections of this document), is effectively a communitybased approach. Participatory forms of community based approaches have the potential to
help reduce intra-community violent conflict by inculcating participatory practices and joint
problem solving. One of the reasons why community based approaches have been widely
used in conflict-affected areas is the assumption that projects implemented at the community
level allow for greater responsiveness to local concerns and conditions (Asia Foundation,
2013). The key findings from the Asia Foundation (2013) study that are relevant to our project
are listed below.
1. Ensure flexibility and adaptation of project designs
Conflict dynamics in the Philippines are complex, diverse, multi--layered, and localized. Do
not be too rigid in project design, but creatively adapt, in order to constructively address
and meet community needs. In some cases projects can lead to further polarisation in the
community - eg if one segment of the community is seen to be favoured over another.
2. Undertake community and sub--regional conflict analysis
Projects should attempt to conduct their own analysis of local conflict and try to map power
relations at the local level. Experience has shown that local conflict analysis is feasible for an
extensive sample population.
3. Collect evidence of impact especially transformative impacts
Robust monitoring and impact analysis of transformative outcomes (as well as development
outcomes) should be undertaken such as strengthening local mechanisms for problem solving
and collective action. Projects should accurately define and measure the most relevant
features of their projects. Transformative outcomes include strengthening local
mechanisms and capacities for problem solving and collective action. The Asia
Foundation reports (almost verbatim):
In conflict-affected communities, there may be a nuanced relationship between development
and transformative goals. In communities where there is a strong need to rebuild social
cohesion and community trust, it may be more important to emphasise the process of
deliberation on community needs, a fair process of negotiating priorities and an inclusive and
transparent process of project implementation. In these cases the goal is to help the
community benefit from having identified and implemented a project cooperatively. The
actual deliverable (such as a livelihood initiative) may be of lesser importance than the
way in which the project is delivered.
Agricultural extension and social capital
Narayan and Pritchett (1997) describe five mechanisms for how improved social capital
affects outcomes:

ASEM/2012/063 Working Paper

Improve societys ability to monitor the performance of government, either

because government officials become more embedded in the social network or
because monitoring the public provision of services is seen as a public good:
Increase possibilities for co-operative action in solving problems with a local
common property element;
Facilitate the diffusion of innovations by increasing inter-linkages among
individuals;
Reduce information imperfections, thereby increasing transactions in output,
credit, land and labour markets;
Increase informal insurance (or informal safety nets) between households, thereby
allowing households to pursue higher returns, but more risky, activities and
production techniques.

Potentially ALL of these attributes are relevant to enhancing agricultural extension. One could
put the case more strongly and say that (most of) these characteristics are also characteristics
deriving from a good agricultural extension system. Indeed, the point was made earlier in this
review that innovation via agricultural extension, has close parallels with the concept of social
capital. This is especially so when agricultural extension is based upon participatory concepts
with a collective dimension, and involves processes of reflective action, learning and decision
making by stakeholders.
However, social capital is a contentious subject. Views differ about what constitutes social
capital, how it operates, to whom and what the concept applies, and how to delineate between
its sources, manifestations and effects. What is broadly agreed is that social norms and/or
social networks are key elements of social capital, and that trust is also part of it or, at least, a
close proxy for it. Social capital is widely seen as a resource that facilitates cooperation within
or between groups of people (Productivity Commission, 2003).
In our project, it is anticipated that identifying the importance and role of social capital in
agricultural extension programs within Mindanao conflict areas will be an important component
of the research. This is based on experience in both Australia and the Philippines, where
strengthening of social capital has been a key factor in the creation of new and innovative
solutions to agricultural issues. Social capital is defined here as social relations that are
productive and that allow individuals and groups to improve their (economic) wellbeing. The
relevance of social capital is expected to be especially relevant in conflict areas, where
isolation is a consequence of conflict.
The agricultural extension methods to be tried in our project will be based around principles
derived from landcare approaches that have been used in Australia and in the Philippines
(Landcare Foundation of the Philippines, 2009) and which can be considered as being
compatible with building social capital. Local landcare groups have been able to generate
considerable social capital which has then been mobilised for the creation of new and
innovative solutions to their livelihood problems (Cramb, 2007; Sobels, Curtis and Lockie,
2001)3. In practical terms, the Philippines landcare experience led to improved agricultural
and economic productivity, resulted from increased levels of trust, better networks, and an
enhanced capacity to work collectively for mutual gain. All of these are considered important
for effective agricultural development in conflict areas. In particular, an experiment in
Maalisbong gave an insight into this by demonstrating that the social capital developed from
farmer group communal activities and group cross-visits enhanced adoption, and provided the

In the Cramb study, membership of the landcare group corresponded to social capital formation

Menz, K. [WP1]

opportunity to create healing and reconciliation between and amongst previously politically
and ethnically polarised groups and communities.
A study of agricultural extension effectiveness in Mali (Reid and Salmen, 2000) found that
social cohesion, which is internal to the community, is the primary pre-condition for
development. If a village has both social cohesion and a qualified, dynamic external agent,
there is significant success in agriculture and other development endeavours. Therefore,
they say:
1. Development agencies should carry out work following the lines of the beneficiary
assessment approach to reveal the kind and degree of social cohesion upon which any
sustainable development effort will be built.
2. Agents must be observers as well as actors within their communities. Sociocultural training
should be included at all levels, including tools such as mapping, participant observation and
conversational interviewing.
3. Social cohesion, while difficult to engineer, can be enhanced by community organization
and local institution building...
4. Recognise and build upon womens associations (formal or informal).
Bridging, bonding, linking social capital
Research has distinguished between bonding, bridging and linking social capital. For a
good discussion of these see Stone (2001). Bonding social capital involves trust and
reciprocity in closed networks (eg within a particular ethnic or religious group) whereas
bridging social capital involves crossover between networks which may make accessible the
resources and opportunities which exist in one network to a member of another. Linking social
capital involves social relations with those in authority. All are relevant to our study, but with
our primary theme being agricultural extension, we can draw upon each of those concepts, as
appropriate to the circumstance at hand. In other words, in our study, social capital is a
means to an end (improved livelihoods/improved agricultural extension), rather than an end in
itself.
Methodology and measurement
Because it is a somewhat diffuse concept, measurement of social capital is problematical.
Major reference documents relating to measurement issues include Stone (2001) and
Productivity Commission (2003). Our project will need to be familiar with the measurement
concepts and methodologies outlines in that document, but it is difficult at this stage of the
project to predict which problems and aspects will be most pertinent. Suffice it to say that we
should refer back to these documents as necessary throughout the project.
Social capital as a public good
Social capital has what economists call public good aspects. This public good aspect
represents a critical difference between social capital and other forms of capital. It results in a
problem of under-investment, since individuals cannot appropriate the (full) benefits of
investment in developing productive social relationships4. Social interaction brings about long
lasting patterns of relationships, which constitute a social (or public) resource. The specific
characteristic of social capital is that it is not incorporated in physical goods or in single human
beings, as physical and human capital is, but rather in social relationships: it is an attribute of
social structures. Social capital can be seen as having a value, when viewed as a level of
4

Althoughindividualscangainprivatebenefitsbyinvestmentinhoningtheirownskillsinrelationtodealingwithother
people,orwithsocietymorebroadly.

ASEM/2012/063 Working Paper

trust between people, or when viewed as knowledge/information about how others in society
may react in certain situations.5 (This knowledge can then facilitate group action). Examples
of public good aspects of social capital were given in the dot points immediately under the
heading Agicultural Extension and Social Capital above.
References
Arcand, J.L. Bah, A.and J. Labonne (2010) Conflict, Ideology and Foreign Aid. Households in
Conflict Network, HiCN Working Paper 86, December.
Asia Foundation (2013) CommunityBased Development in Conflict-Affected Areas of the
Philippines. Asia Foundation, San Francisco.
Cramb, R.A. (2007) Participation in community landcare groups in the Philippines: a social
capital perspective. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 14(2): 93-102
Deepa Narayan D. and P. Petesch eds (2010). Moving Out of Poverty, VOLUME 4. Rising
from the Ashes of Conflict. A co-publication of Palgrave Macmillan and the World Bank,
Washington, DC.
Ferroni and Zhou (2012). Achievements and challenges in agricultural extension in India.
Global Journal of Emerging Market Economies 4(3) pp319-346.
Jones, R. B., Bramel, P., Longley, C. and T. Remington (2002). The need to look beyond the
production and provision of relief seed: experiences from Southern Sudan. Disasters, 26(4)
pp302-315
Korf, B. and E. Bauer (2002). Food Security in the Context of Crisis and Conflict: Beyond
Continuum Thinking. Gatekeeper Series 106, International Institute for Environment and
Development, London.
Landcare Foundation of the Philippines, Inc. 2009. Landcare in the Philippines: a practical
guide to getting it started and keeping it going. ACIAR Monograph No. 138. Australian Centre
for International Agricultural Research, Canberra.
Leeuwis, C., and A.W. Van den Ban, A. W., eds (2004). Communication for Rural Innovation:
Rethinking Agricultural Extension. Blackwell, London.
Longley, C., Christoplos, I. and T. Slaymaker (2006). Agricultural Rehabilitation: Mapping the
linkages between humanitarian relief, social protection and development. HPG Report 22,
Overseas Development Institute, London
Mindanao Development Authority (2011). Mindanao 2020 Peace and Development
Framework Plan 2011-2030: Executive Summary. Davao City, Philippines.
Munkner, H. (1979). Co-operatives and Rural Poverty, Marburg, Federal Republic of
Germany
Productivity Commission 2003, Social Capital: Reviewing the Concept and its Policy
Implications, Research Paper, AusInfo, Canberra.
Reid, C. And L. Salmen (2000) Agricultural extension in Mali: trust and social cohesion.
World Bank Social Capital Initiative Working paper no 22, Washington DC

A number of economists (eg Solow, 1999) have criticized the use of the term capital in this particular contex (of
social capital), as being misleading. His criticism stems from the fact that use of the word capital implies a
deliberate foregoing of immediate benefits in return for future benefits. However Solows criticism seems to ignore
the investment required to develop productive relationships.

Menz, K. [WP1]

Rivera, W. and V. R. Sulaiman (2009). Extension: object of reform, engine for innovation
Outlook on Agriculture 38(3), pp 267273
Robertson, A. (2012). Enabling Agricultural Extension for Peacebuilding. Special Report 320.
United States Institute for Peace, Washington, DC.
Rogers, E. (1962). Diffusion of Innovations. The Free Press, Ithaca NY
Schwartz, L.A. and J.Kampen (1992). Agricultural Extension in East Africa. World Bank
Technical Paper 164. World Bank, Washington DC
Sobels, J., Curtis, A. and Lockie, S. (2001) The role of Landcare group networks in rural
Australia: exploring the contribution of social capital. Journal of Rural Studies, 17: 265-276
Solow, R (1999) Notes on social capital and economic performance. In Dasgupta, P. and I.
Serageldin eds. Social capital: a multifaceted perspective. World Bank Washington DC
Stone W (2001) Measuring social capital: Towards a theoretically informed measurement
framework for researching social capital in family and community life. Australian Institute for
Family Studies, Research paper number 24, Melbourne.
Umar, B.F. (2011). Public Issues Education and Extension Practice in Nigeria Journal of
Agricultural Extension 15 (1), pp84-92
Van den Ban, A. W. and H.S. Hawkins (1996). Agricultural extension. 2nd ed Oxford:
Blackwell
World Bank (2005). Source book: Agricultural investment. Module 11 - Strengthening
Agricultural Markets in Areas Affected by Conflict. World Bank, Washington, DC
World Bank (2006). Enhancing agricultural innovation: how to go beyond the strengthening of
research systems, ARD, World Bank, Washington, DC.
World Bank (2011). World Development Report 2011: Conflict, Security, and Development.
World Bank, Washington, DC